| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
City Parochial Fund
Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whose advice the Charity Commissioners will seek if it is proposed to them that the terms of the City Parochial Fund should be varied so as to reduce the money currently available, in accordance with the intentions of the original testators, for maintaining the fabric of the City churches, and make these funds available instead to the diocese or the Church Commissioners for other more general purposes outwith the intentions of the original testators; and whether it is within the authority of the Charity Commissioners to make such variations.
Baroness Blatch: The City Church Fund is the part of the City Parochial Foundation the income from which is applicable for religious purposes.
The Charity Commissioners have the power to alter the trusts of the fund in the circumstances set out in Section 13 of the Charities Act 1993, subject to the statutory procedures. The commissioners would consult all bodies that would be affected by any change to the trusts of the fund, including those bodies that have the right to appoint trustees and the parochial church councils of each parish in the fund's area of benefit.
Criminal Appeals: Outcome
Lord Windlesham asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will bring up to date from 1989 to the most recent year for which statistics are available the table published as note 5 on p. 181 of the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (Cm. 2263).
Baroness Blatch: The information requested is given in the following table:
| Outcome of appeal | ||||||
| Year | Cases (defendants) | Allowed | Dismissed | |||
| 1989 | 3 (6) | 3 (6) | Nil | |||
| 1990 | 7 (20) | 7 (20) | Nil | |||
| 1991 | 10 (12) | 10 (i)(12) | Nil | |||
| 1992 | 8 (11) | 5 (8) | 3 (3) | |||
| 1993 | 8 (ii)(9) | 3 (4) | 3 (3) | |||
| 1994 | 9 (iii)(12) | 4 (4) | Nil | |||
| 1995 (to date) | 16 (iv)(18) | Nil | Nil | |||
(i) Court ordered a re-trial in one case: defendant later acquitted.
(ii) 2 still outstanding.
(iii) 5 (8) still outstanding.
(iv) 16 (18) outstanding.
Lord Windlesham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Baroness Blatch: The maximum penalty on conviction on indictment for burglary of a dwelling is 14 years' imprisonment, and for aggravated burglary is life imprisonment. The maximum penalty on summary conviction for burglary of a dwelling is six months' imprisonment. The same maximum custodial penalties apply to juveniles.
Lord Windlesham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Baroness Blatch: Under Section 53(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 the court is required to impose a sentence of detention during Her Majesty's pleasure on a person convicted of murder who was under 18 years of age at the time the offence was committed. This sentence is the equivalent for juveniles of the mandatory life sentence which the court is required to impose on adults convicted of murder. By virtue of Section 43(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the arrangements for determining when it is safe to release the offender are the same as those which apply in mandatory life sentence cases. The procedures for setting the tariff are also identical. Section 53(1) of the 1933 Act does not apply to persons convicted of manslaughter.
Lord Windlesham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Baroness Blatch: The figures in the 1994 report anticipated the introduction of the first tariff scheme on 1 April 1994. The enforced withdrawal of that scheme in April 1995 and the reinstatement of the 1990 scheme have had a significant effect on the work of the Criminal
The number of cases outstanding at 31 March 1995 was just under 110,000. Current plans assume the board will resolve some 78,000 cases in 1995–96, which would leave the number of cases outstanding at just under 110,000.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Baroness Blatch: Officials in central government pass to the Immigration and Nationality Department information about suspected illegal entrants and over-stayers provided that they are not prevented from doing so by any statutory obligations or policy constraints. The provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 are observed by all government departments.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Baroness Blatch: The content of the guidance and instructions has yet to be finalised. Some of the detail is dependent upon the outcome of the consultation processes with the Commission for Racial Equality, the local authority associations and the Data Protection Registrar. It will ultimately be the responsibility of each government department concerned to reach a decision on disclosure of its internal instructions when final arrangements have been agreed. In reaching a decision, each department will assess whether disclosure of any of the material would harm the proper and efficient conduct of its operations. On completion of the consultation with the local authority associations, copies of guidance issued to local authorities will be placed in the Library.
Lord Denning asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the maximum penalty for domestic burglary committed by an adult or a juvenile.
Whether the exclusion of imprisonment for life as the penalty for murder or manslaughter in Section 53(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 means that persons sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure under the powers in this section should be treated as discretionary rather than mandatory life sentence prisoners.
Whether it is still forecast that 105,300 applications for criminal injuries compensation will be outstanding in 1995–96 and whether there are any adjustments to be made to Table 9(ii) of the Home Office Annual Report 1994 (Cm. 2508), p. 53.
What safeguards exist to protect the personal privacy of suspected illegal entrants and over-stayers about whom officials in central government pass information to the immigration authorities.
Whether they will publish the instructions and guidance given to officials in central and local government to strengthen immigration control and to prevent those temporarily or illegally in the United Kingdom from receiving state benefits to which they should not be entitled; and if not, why not.
Whether the functions of the Charity Commissioners, as defined by Sections 1(1) and 1(3) of the Charities Act 1993, are to be exercised by the commissioners acting as a board under paragraph 3(4) of the first schedule, or
23 Oct 1995 : Column WA108
- can be carried out by an assistant commissioner under paragraph 3(3), without reference to the board; and whether legal proceedings can be instituted by or against the commissioners under paragraph 4 of the first schedule and not by or against any single commissioner or assistant commissioner.
Baroness Blatch: The functions of the Charity Commissioners need not be undertaken by the Board of Commissioners acting as a board under paragraph 3(4) of the first schedule to the Charities Act 1993. By virtue of paragraph 3(3) of the first schedule, they may be undertaken by any one commissioner or by any assistant commissioner, subject to any regulations made by the Board of Commissioners for the regulation of their own procedure and to any directions of the Chief Commissioner.
Legal proceedings relating to the discharge of the commissioners' statutory functions should be brought by or against them collectively. Paragraph 4 of the first schedule provides that such proceedings should be brought "by or against the Commissioners by the name of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales".
Criminal Appeals
Lord Windlesham asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How many appeals in England and Wales against (a) conviction and (b) sentence were heard in 1994 by the Crown Court on appeal from the magistrates' courts, and by the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal from the Crown Court, and how many in each category were allowed.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Court Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. Michael Huebner. I have accordingly asked the Chief Executive to reply direct.
Letter to Lord Windlesham from the Chief Executive of the Court Service, Mr. Michael Huebner, dated 23/10/95.
The Lord Chancellor has asked me to reply to your Question about criminal appeals heard and allowed in 1994.
In 1994 the Crown Court dealt with 12,030 appeal cases from magistrates' courts against conviction and 8,505 against sentence. Of these, 8,139 individual appellants had their appeals against conviction allowed and 3,946 had their sentences varied.
The Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal heard 928 appeals from the Crown Court against conviction, of which 351 were allowed, and 2,027 appeals against sentence, of which 1,384 were allowed.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |