Asked by: Caroline Johnson (Conservative - Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, how many prosecutions there have been for offences relating to the termination of pregnancy through the the pills-by-post scheme.
Answered by Ellie Reeves - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
The At-Home Early Medical Abortion or EMA (known as the “pills by post” scheme), was implemented to allow eligible individuals to receive medication to terminate a pregnancy of less than 10 weeks via post after a telephone or video consultation. Introduced in England and Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 to improve access to care, the scheme was made permanent in August 2022.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not hold any data which shows the number of prosecutions for offences relating to the illegal use of medication expressly procured to cause an abortion. To establish number and outcomes of prosecutions where relevant offences relating to the misuse of medication were prosecuted would require a manual review of case files and this would be at disproportionate cost.
Management information is available which shows the number of offences charged by way of Sections 58 and 59 (administering drugs or using instruments to procure abortion / procuring drugs, instruments to cause abortion) and Section 1 (child destruction) in which a prosecution commenced. The table below shows the number of these offences from 1st April 2020 to 31st March 2025.
| Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 { 1(1) } | Offences Against the Person Act 1861 { 58 } | Offences Against the Person Act 1861 { 59 } |
2020-2021 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2021-2022 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
2022-2023 | 4 | 5 | 3 |
2023-2024 | 3 | 5 | 0 |
2024-2025 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
Data Source: CPS Case Management Information System | |||
The figures relate to the number of offences and not the number of individual defendants. It can be the case that an individual defendant is charged with more than one offence against the same complainant. No data are held showing the final outcome or if the charged offence was the substantive charge at finalisation.
Asked by: Caroline Johnson (Conservative - Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Solicitor General, what proportion of (a) named day questions and (b) ordinary written questions were responded to by her Department within the required timescale in (i) May 2025, (ii) June 2025, (iii) July 2025, (iv) August 2025, (v) September 2025, (vi) October 2025 and (vii) November 2025.
Answered by Ellie Reeves - Solicitor General (Attorney General's Office)
The Government recognises the importance of the effective and timely handling of written parliamentary questions (PQs).
The House of Commons Procedure Committee monitors departmental PQ performance and publishes a report of the government’s consolidated PQ data following the end of each session.
Asked by: Caroline Johnson (Conservative - Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what the average fine was for convictions for offences relating to hare coursing in each police area in England in each year from 2014 to the last year for which data is available.
Answered by Robert Buckland
Data on fines is recorded by the Ministry of Justice for these offences, rather than the AGO. Officials at the MoJ have advised us that there were no fines in 2014; four in 2015 and none in 2016. The MoJ does not provide information on amounts of fines when the samples are statistically this small.
Asked by: Caroline Johnson (Conservative - Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how many prosecutions for offences relating to hare coursing led to a conviction in each police area in England in each year from 2014 to the last year for which data is available.
Answered by Robert Buckland
The Hunting Act 2004 introduced a prohibition against hare coursing. Under Section 5 of the Act, a person commits an offence if they participate in, attend, knowingly facilitate, or permit land owned by them to be used in a hare coursing event.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) maintains a central record of the number of offences in which a prosecution commenced, including offences charged by way of Section 5 of the Hunting Act 2004 which covers England and Wales.
The table below shows the number of these offences prosecuted and the police force area, in each of the last three years.
- | 2014-2015 | 2015-2016 | 2016-2017 |
Essex | 0 | 4 | 0 |
Norfolk | 6 | 0 | 6 |
Sussex | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 6 | 4 | 8 |
Data Source: CPS Case Management Information System | |||
There is no indication of the number of individual defendants prosecuted for these offences or the final outcome of the prosecution proceeding or if the charged offence was the substantive charge at the time of finalisation. It is often the case that defendants will be prosecuted for more than one offence in the same set of proceedings.
Asked by: Caroline Johnson (Conservative - Sleaford and North Hykeham)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how many prosecutions there have been for offences relating to hare coursing in each police area in England in each year from 2014 to the last year for which data is available.
Answered by Robert Buckland
The Hunting Act 2004 introduced a prohibition against hare coursing. Under Section 5 of the Act, a person commits an offence if they participate in, attend, knowingly facilitate, or permit land owned by them to be used in a hare coursing event.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) maintains a central record of the number of offences in which a prosecution commenced, including offences charged by way of Section 5 of the Hunting Act 2004 which covers England and Wales.
The table below shows the number of these offences prosecuted and the police force area, in each of the last three years.
- | 2014-2015 | 2015-2016 | 2016-2017 |
Essex | 0 | 4 | 0 |
Norfolk | 6 | 0 | 6 |
Sussex | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 6 | 4 | 8 |
Data Source: CPS Case Management Information System | |||
There is no indication of the number of individual defendants prosecuted for these offences or the final outcome of the prosecution proceeding or if the charged offence was the substantive charge at the time of finalisation. It is often the case that defendants will be prosecuted for more than one offence in the same set of proceedings.