Asked by: Angela Smith (Liberal Democrat - Penistone and Stocksbridge)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the average time it takes to process criminal cases in the courts in South Yorkshire in the most recent period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Edward Argar - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice has published information on the average length of time taken from first listing to completion, quarterly from June 2010 to December 2018, and can be found in the timeliness-transparency-q4-2018 file: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/790261/Transparency_files.zip
Filter LCJB area: South Yorkshire LCJB, data can then be filtered by court type.
Data for the quarter ending March 2019 will be published in June 2019.
The South Yorkshire Local Criminal Justice Board and the agencies involved keep performance regularly under review and take action when required.
We are working together across the Criminal Justice System to ensure the smooth running of our courts, as well as using new technology and initiatives to reduce delays and outstanding cases at the Crown Court are at the lowest levels nationally since 2000. We have a world-leading justice system and performance levels are continually kept under close review to ensure changes in demands are met.
Asked by: Angela Smith (Liberal Democrat - Penistone and Stocksbridge)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were prosecuted under the (a) Protection of Badgers Act 1992, (b) Deer Act 1991 and (c) Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 in 2017; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Rory Stewart
The number of people prosecuted and convicted for offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, Deer Act 1991, Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 and Hunting Act 2004 in 2017 can be found in published ‘Experimental statistics: Principal offence proceedings and outcomes by Home Office offence code data tool’ available here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/738814/HO-Code-Tool-2017.xlsx
The specific offences to search for are:
Where there are no codes available for the year 2017 (or other years), this means that there have been no prosecutions or convictions under that offence code in that year.
[1] Offences under both the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and Protection of Badgers Act 1992 should not be included as it is not possible to identify whether all of the individual offences within this offence group are related to badgers.
Asked by: Angela Smith (Liberal Democrat - Penistone and Stocksbridge)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were found guilty of offences under the (a) Protection of Badgers Act 1992, (b) Deer Act 1991, (c) Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 and (d) Hunting Act 2004 in 2017; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Rory Stewart
The number of people prosecuted and convicted for offences under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, Deer Act 1991, Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 and Hunting Act 2004 in 2017 can be found in published ‘Experimental statistics: Principal offence proceedings and outcomes by Home Office offence code data tool’ available here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/738814/HO-Code-Tool-2017.xlsx
The specific offences to search for are:
Where there are no codes available for the year 2017 (or other years), this means that there have been no prosecutions or convictions under that offence code in that year.
[1] Offences under both the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and Protection of Badgers Act 1992 should not be included as it is not possible to identify whether all of the individual offences within this offence group are related to badgers.
Asked by: Angela Smith (Liberal Democrat - Penistone and Stocksbridge)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions Ministers of her Department have had with their counterparts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the maximum sentence available to the courts for offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Answered by Sam Gyimah
The Government keeps maximum penalties under review.
Details of all ministerial meetings are published in the transparency returns on gov.uk.
Asked by: Angela Smith (Liberal Democrat - Penistone and Stocksbridge)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment her Department has made of trends in the level of the recidivism rate of persons who have committed offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in the last 10 years.
Answered by Sam Gyimah
The reoffending rate for those who committed an offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 was on average just over one percent over the last eight years.
Data on reoffending rates for people convicted of offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is available up to 2014, with a one year follow-up period. Data for 2015 and 2016 will be available in due course.
Asked by: Angela Smith (Liberal Democrat - Penistone and Stocksbridge)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of domestic abuse victims in child contact cases in the family court have been in receipt of legal aid in each year since 2010.
Answered by Phillip Lee
This data is not centrally recorded and could only be obtained by incurring disproportionate costs.
Asked by: Angela Smith (Liberal Democrat - Penistone and Stocksbridge)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, in what proportion of child contact cases presided over by the family judiciary in each year since 2010, where there was an allegation of domestic abuse, either party were litigants in person.
Answered by Phillip Lee
This information is not held centrally.
Asked by: Angela Smith (Liberal Democrat - Penistone and Stocksbridge)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what average hourly rate is paid to (a) external solicitors and (b) Treasury Solicitor staff working on developing the residence test for legal aid.
Answered by Shailesh Vara
Legal aid is a fundamental part of our justice system, but resources are not limitless. Legal aid is paid for by the taxpayer and at all times we must strive to ensure that public confidence is maintained in the system.
We believe that in principle, individuals should have a strong connection to the UK in order to benefit from the civil legal aid scheme. We have therefore proposed to introduce a residence test for civil legal aid requiring applicants to be lawfully resident in the UK, Crown Dependencies or British Overseas Territories at the time they apply for civil legal aid and have resided there lawfully for at least 12 continuous months in the past.
The civil legal aid residence test is part of the Legal Aid Transformation Programme, which consists of a number of work-streams.
In April 2014, the Department’s Legal Directorate was absorbed by the Treasury Solicitor’s Department. There is no record of the hours spent by Treasury Solicitor staff in the Legal Directorate advising on the legal aid residence test policy. Treasury Solicitor staff in the Department’s Legal Directorate do not record the time spent on advising on developing the residence test for legal aid or charge the Department an hourly rate for work undertaken. The Department has not engaged any Treasury Solicitor staff on developing the policy on the residence test beyond those employed within the Department’s Legal Directorate.
No external barristers (other than Treasury Counsel) or external solicitors were engaged by the Department on developing the residence test for legal aid. It is not possible to separate work carried out by Treasury Counsel on the development of the policy of the residence test as one work-stream from the wider programme or from the litigation relating to the policy.
Asked by: Angela Smith (Liberal Democrat - Penistone and Stocksbridge)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many hours have been spent by (a) external solicitors, (b) external barristers, (c) Treasury Solicitor staff and (d) Treasury Counsel engaged by his Department for advice on the legal aid residence test policy.
Answered by Shailesh Vara
Legal aid is a fundamental part of our justice system, but resources are not limitless. Legal aid is paid for by the taxpayer and at all times we must strive to ensure that public confidence is maintained in the system.
We believe that in principle, individuals should have a strong connection to the UK in order to benefit from the civil legal aid scheme. We have therefore proposed to introduce a residence test for civil legal aid requiring applicants to be lawfully resident in the UK, Crown Dependencies or British Overseas Territories at the time they apply for civil legal aid and have resided there lawfully for at least 12 continuous months in the past.
The civil legal aid residence test is part of the Legal Aid Transformation Programme, which consists of a number of work-streams.
In April 2014, the Department’s Legal Directorate was absorbed by the Treasury Solicitor’s Department. There is no record of the hours spent by Treasury Solicitor staff in the Legal Directorate advising on the legal aid residence test policy. Treasury Solicitor staff in the Department’s Legal Directorate do not record the time spent on advising on developing the residence test for legal aid or charge the Department an hourly rate for work undertaken. The Department has not engaged any Treasury Solicitor staff on developing the policy on the residence test beyond those employed within the Department’s Legal Directorate.
No external barristers (other than Treasury Counsel) or external solicitors were engaged by the Department on developing the residence test for legal aid. It is not possible to separate work carried out by Treasury Counsel on the development of the policy of the residence test as one work-stream from the wider programme or from the litigation relating to the policy.
Asked by: Angela Smith (Liberal Democrat - Penistone and Stocksbridge)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much in total has been paid to (a) each external solicitor, (b) each external barrister, (c) Treasury Solicitor staff and (d) Treasury Counsel engaged by his Department for advice on the policy development of the legal aid residence test.
Answered by Shailesh Vara
Legal aid is a fundamental part of our justice system, but resources are not limitless. Legal aid is paid for by the taxpayer and at all times we must strive to ensure that public confidence is maintained in the system.
We believe that in principle, individuals should have a strong connection to the UK in order to benefit from the civil legal aid scheme. We have therefore proposed to introduce a residence test for civil legal aid requiring applicants to be lawfully resident in the UK, Crown Dependencies or British Overseas Territories at the time they apply for civil legal aid and have resided there lawfully for at least 12 continuous months in the past.
The civil legal aid residence test is part of the Legal Aid Transformation Programme, which consists of a number of work-streams.
In April 2014, the Department’s Legal Directorate was absorbed by the Treasury Solicitor’s Department. There is no record of the hours spent by Treasury Solicitor staff in the Legal Directorate advising on the legal aid residence test policy. Treasury Solicitor staff in the Department’s Legal Directorate do not record the time spent on advising on developing the residence test for legal aid or charge the Department an hourly rate for work undertaken. The Department has not engaged any Treasury Solicitor staff on developing the policy on the residence test beyond those employed within the Department’s Legal Directorate.
No external barristers (other than Treasury Counsel) or external solicitors were engaged by the Department on developing the residence test for legal aid. It is not possible to separate work carried out by Treasury Counsel on the development of the policy of the residence test as one work-stream from the wider programme or from the litigation relating to the policy.