First elected: 5th May 2005
Left House: 30th March 2015 (Defeated)
Speeches made during Parliamentary debates are recorded in Hansard. For ease of browsing we have grouped debates into individual, departmental and legislative categories.
These initiatives were driven by John Hemming, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.
MPs who are act as Ministers or Shadow Ministers are generally restricted from performing Commons initiatives other than Urgent Questions.
John Hemming has not been granted any Urgent Questions
John Hemming has not been granted any Adjournment Debates
A Bill to make provision regarding arrangements for children involved in court proceedings; to make provision about the transparency, administration and accountability of courts and case conferences; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually on the number of prisoners who have exceeded their tariff and have not been released because they do not admit guilt; to extend the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s powers to obtain information; to make provision about consumer complaints in markets for public services; to amend certain sections of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 relating to contracts; and for connected purposes.
A Bill to make provision regarding arrangements for children involved in court cases; to make provision about the transparency, administration and accountability of courts and case conferences; to require the promotion of measures to assist families and such other persons as may be specified to reduce the cost of living through lower fuel bills; and for connected purposes.
A Bill to ensure that individuals claiming state benefits are automatically enrolled onto alternative benefits to which they are entitled when a benefit ceases to be applicable; and for connected purposes.
John Hemming has not co-sponsored any Bills in the current parliamentary sitting
The law is clear that any adult who has responsibility for any child or young person under 16 can be prosecuted for neglect if they leave a child unsupervised “in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health” (Section 1 Children and Young Persons Act 1933).
There are no plans for the Department for Education to issue guidance. The choice to leave children home alone is left to the parents to decide using their own judgement. The NSPCC produce guidance on this, which sets out the law and when it would become a child protection issue or a criminal offence to leave a child at home alone. The guidance can be found online at:
www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/advice-and-info/home-alone-guide-keeping-child-safe.pdf
The Education Act 1996 places a duty on the parents of any child of compulsory school age who is registered at a school, to ensure their child’s regular attendance. The Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulation 2006 and subsequent amendments provide the basis upon which schools record pupil attendance. It ensures that both parents and the school know the whereabouts of pupils and are held to account for fulfilling their duty towards those pupils.
This is not new Government policy and it has been the result of considerable deliberation and scrutiny. The Department for Education does not intend to review the application of the 2013 Regulations in light of the announcement made by my Rt hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions regarding the families test.
Data on the overall number of contacts from equivalent Departments overseas are not collated centrally within the Department for Education.
Over the past year, however, Government officials have held positive discussions, covering a wide range of international child safeguarding issues, with representatives from a number of European nations including Poland, the Slovak Republic, and the Czech Republic.
A sizeable number of files would need to be reviewed to answer this question. DFID’s database shows over 500 files for the department which dealt with the Overseas Territories for file period 1995/97 alone. It costs £1.50 to access each file. The costs associated with archive research covering the period 1994 to 2004 would therefore be considerable. In addition to financial costs there would also be substantial associated staff costs with carrying out this archive research.
On the basis of the disproportionate cost threshold for written questions, it was assessed that this information could not be collated without incurring disproportionate cost.
Details of reports or assessments commissioned into child protection since 1994 would require extensive archive research at a disproportionate cost to the UK taxpayer.
DFID has supported the Overseas Territories (OTs) in developing capacity to manage and improve child safeguarding since 2005, working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). This has included the joint commissioning of a number of reports and assessments, primarily:
· Pitcairn Child Safeguarding Reviews 2009, 2011 and 2013, conducted by the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and independent Social Work experts from New Zealand
· St Helena Child Safeguarding Review 2013, conducted by Lucy Faithfull Foundation
· In July the Foreign and Commonwealth Office announced it would be establishing an independent Inquiry into child abuse allegations on St Helena. The aim of this inquiry is to establish the truth surrounding allegations of a HMG and St Helena Government conspiracy to cover up child abuse in St Helena and make recommendations. Sasha Wass QC will be leading the inquiry and this was announced to Parliament on 20 November.
DFID does not provide support to the Crown Dependencies.
HSE collect statistics on injuries through the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations but not on explosions of manhole covers. Since 2000 there was one injury reported where the incident involved an explosion lifting a manhole cover.
HSE are working with utility providers to understand how and why incidents like this occur.
The Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013, required the Secretary of State to appoint an independent person to prepare a report on the operation of sanctions validated by the legislation. The terms of reference reflect this requirement.
However, the Government Response to the Oakley Review goes wider than the terms of reference. For example, we are reviewing all claimant communications and sanctions processes, not only for those Jobseekers Allowance claimants who come under the remit of the Report, but all JSA claimants and also all Employment Support Allowance claimants.
The calculation of the £1 billion cost of the Affordable Homes Bill was made on Thursday 4th September by Departmental Officials following an assessment of the potential effects of the provisions set out in the draft Bill at Second Reading.
The potential cost was estimated using administrative data (Single Housing Benefit Extract) and the department’s policy simulation model.
As with all our policies, we will continue to keep the operation of the sanctions system under review to ensure that it continues to operate effectively and as fairly as possible. We also continue to make improvements as committed to in the Oakley Review.
In 2012 revised sanctions regimes introduced into Jobseeker's Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance moved us towards the Universal Credit system, with the same value of sanction across all benefits and the same duration of sanctions at medium and high levels.
We continue to monitor sanctions closely and consider opportunities for continuous improvement.
The guide to Parliamentary work (available on the Cabinet Office website at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-parliamentary-work and already in the Library of the House) sets out that Government departments can refuse to answer a question where the cost of responding to that question would be above the disproportionate cost threshold, which is currently set at £850. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office calculated that collating a response to the hon. Member’s question would exceed this threshold.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has supported the Overseas Territories (OTs) in developing capacity to manage and improve child safeguarding since 2005, through the joint commissioning of a number of reports and assessments:
• On 21 July 2014 the former FCO Minister for Overseas Territories, the Hon Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) announced to Parliament that the FCO would be establishing an independent Inquiry into child abuse allegations on St Helena. On 20 November 2014, the Foreign Secretary announced to Parliament that Sasha Wass QC will be leading the inquiry.
• In March 2014: Northumbria Police investigation into observations of child safeguarding provisions and the effectiveness and efficiency of the St Helena Police force.
• A review of Policing in St Helena was undertaken by Simon Martin, Southern Ocean Law Enforcement Adviser 4-6 March 2013.
• In September 2013 the Lucy Faithfull foundation carried out a St Helena Child Safeguarding Review 2013. An executive summary was published at the time.
• In November 2012 Sussex Constabulary investigated complaints about police officers in an Ascension Island investigation.
• A primary investigation into the allegations raised in an anonymous letter received by the FCO on 7 November 2012 led by Lewis Evans, Immigration Executive Officer on Ascension and St Helena.
• There were three Pitcairn Child Safeguarding Reviews in 2009, 2011 and 2013, conducted by the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and independent Social Work experts from New Zealand.
• A Child Safety Review in the Falkland Islands by the Lucy Faithful Foundation in June 2013 with a report published in August 2013.
• The Lucy Faithful Foundation produced a preliminary report in 2014 on Montserrat.
• There have been the following DFID initiatives since 2005: The Safeguarding Children in the Overseas Territories (SCOT) programme (2009-2013), followed on from a Child Protection Programme (CPP, 2005-2008).
• In September 2014 a dedicated Child Safeguarding and Domestic Violence Policy Officer position was created within the Overseas Territories Directorate of the FCO to encourage compliance with best practice and support the Territories in establishing and improving existing measures that promote welfare and protect children from harm.
As self governing jurisdictions the Crown Dependencies have their own systems in place and responsibility for child safeguarding, as such there has been no reason for HMG to commission any reports.
You have asked for details of reports or assessments commissioned into child protection since 1994. The information requested is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
We have no plans to respond in writing to the report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism dated 28 February 2014. However, the United Kingdom was represented at the UN Human Rights Council expert meeting on 22 September, where we once again set out our position on the legality of Remotely Piloted Air Systems.
Territory Governments have the principal responsibility for ensure the safeguarding of children in the Overseas Territories, for which the UK provides practical assistance and support. DFID and the FCO have been supporting child safeguarding initiatives in the OT’s for the last nine years, most recently through the Safeguarding Children in the Overseas Territories (SCOT) programme (2013-2016), which followed on from an earlier SCOT programme (2009-2013) and a regional Child Protection Programme (CPP, 2005-2008). Although tangible progress was made in earlier programmes to raise awareness and build capacity, the new programme will focus on gaining a deeper understanding of the problem including how to detect, prevent and address child abuse.
In St Helena, the SCOT programme has helped encourage revised and updated legislation to protect children, established professional protocols and procedures for those involved in child services, improved the provision of training for St Helena officials, and helped to promote local ownership of the safeguarding agenda. Support has been provided to St Helena through a Lucy Faithfull Foundation review (2013) and technical expertise to take forward a robust child safeguarding action plan arising from review recommendations.
The FCO and DFID have been working closely with the UK police who have investigated reports into child sex abuse of St Helena and continue to do so.
The Governor and the elected government of St Helena take very seriously any allegations of child abuse and police corruption. All allegations are investigated and where evidence is available those responsible are dealt with according to the law. There have been numerous successful prosecutions over the period in question with substantial sentences awarded to those convicted of an offence.
Safeguarding children in St Helena is a critical priority for the St Helena Government and the UK. Whilst Territory Governments have the principal responsibility for ensure the safeguarding of children in the Overseas Territories, the UK provides practical assistance and support. DFID and the FCO have been supporting child safeguarding initiatives in the OT’s for the last nine years, most recently through the Safeguarding Children in the Overseas Territories (SCOT) programme (2013-2016), which followed on from an earlier SCOT programme (2009-2013) and a regional Child Protection Programme (CPP, 2005-2008). This new programme will focus on gaining a deeper understanding of the problem including how to detect, prevent and address child abuse.
Following recent further allegations relating to child abuse in St Helena, the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs agreed to establish an independent panel of experts to investigate these specific allegations and related matters. In response to these allegations the island’s Executive Council said: “We have taken great steps on St Helena to protect our children and vulnerable people against abuse of any kind. We know that there are concerns, as there are in any community, but solid progress has been made in improving our safeguarding capabilities. We know there is still more to do, and we will continue to strive for further improvements
All these data are available from the Office for Budget Responsibility’s databank, including the Office for National Statistics outturn data (published 22nd November 2014) and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s independent forecast (consistent with the Economic and Fiscal Outlook December 2014 and the Autumn Statement 2014).
UK Total Managed Expenditure in nominal sterling.
2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | ||
TME outturn (£bn) | 680.6 | 700.9 | 701.2 | 717.9 | 719.9 | |
2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | 2019-20 | |
TME forecast (£bn) | 737.1 | 746.2 | 746.7 | 751.3 | 765.3 | 779.9 |
Gross Domestic Product in nominal sterling.
2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | ||
Nominal GDP outturn (£bn) | 1501.7 | 1,576.2 | 1,628.5 | 1,663.2 | 1,733.0 | |
2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | 2019-20 | |
Nominal GDP forecast (£bn) | 1,822.0 | 1,888.0 | 1,956.0 | 2,038.0 | 2,124.0 | 2,215.0 |
Total Managed Expenditure expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product.
2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 | 2013-14 | ||
TME outturn (%GDP) | 45.3 | 44.5 | 43.1 | 43.2 | 41.5 | |
2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | 2019-20 | |
TME forecast (%GDP) | 40.5 | 39.5 | 38.2 | 36.9 | 36.0 | 35.2 |
Variances when comparing the most up to date figures set out above against the Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis (command paper) are due to these figures including the latest outturn data, incorporating the latest forecast judgement by the Office for Budget Responsibility and the latest classification changes made by the Office for National Statistics.
Since the Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis was published in July 2014 the Office for Budget Responsibility has published their latest forecast in their December 2014 Economic and Fiscal Outlook. The Office for National Statistics regularly update outturn, at a various points in the year, for total managed expenditure and gross domestic product.
On 29 March 2007 in a Written Ministerial Statement the Prime Minister announced a Machinery of Government Change whereby the transfer of a number of policy areas would take place from the Home Office to a new Ministry of Justice. This included the transfer of the National Offender Management Service, including the Prison and Probation Services, on 9th May 2007. Incorporated in this change was the policy relating to the secure estate for young offenders.
Section 46 of the Children and Young Persons act 1969 contains provision for the cessation of approved schools as a consequence of the establishment of community homes. The responsibility for approved schools was transferred to the Department of Health and Social Security in 1971 and, in 1973, under a number of orders made under powers in section 46 above approved schools ceased to operate in 1973.
While the investigation by West Midlands Police into this appalling and devastating crime remains open it would not be appropriate for the police to grant access to their files.
Under Section 26 of the Police Act (1996), the Home Office has authorised three deployments of UK police officers to St Helena to provide advice to the St Helena Police: two in 2010 and a third in 2013. The Home Office does not hold details on the costs of these deployments which are a matter for the relevant UK police force facilitating the visit, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the authorities in St Helena.
I refer the hon. Member to the Written Ministerial Statement of 9 December, Official Report, Column 27-29WS. We intend to change the electoral cycle of Birmingham City Council to all out elections. We intend to do this by making the appropriate Order under the Local Government Act 2000.
Details of contempt of court hearings are not always held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the public. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and any warrant retained on file. Those not relating to a specific case will be recorded on daily lists and any warrants stored along with other orders. Local practices vary as to how contempts of court are recorded and stored.
HMCTS have checked records of cases heard since November 2014 in relation to Manchester County Court, High Court sitting at Manchester and Manchester Family Court. For those courts, HMCTS have identified one case where a committal orders was made for imprisonment for contempt of court. Details are contained in the table below. The contemnor may not have been present at court and therefore may not necessarily have begun their term of imprisonment straight away. This data is management information and has been collated specifically to answer this question.
Court | Judge | Date | Period |
Manchester County Court | HHJ Kushner QC | 12/12/14 | 6 months |
It has not been possible to provide information in relation to Manchester Crown Court or Manchester Magistrates’ Court. Data is not recorded in a way that enables HMCTS to identify all such cases without checking every case file and every daily list since 1 November, which would involve disproportionate costs.
Details of contempt of court hearings are not always held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the public. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and any warrant retained on file. Those not relating to a specific case will be recorded on daily lists and any warrants stored along with other orders. Local practices vary as to how contempts of court are recorded and stored.
HMCTS have checked records of cases heard since November 2014 in relation to Leeds County Court, High Court sitting at Leeds and Leeds Family Court. For those courts, HMCTS have identified no cases where a committal order was made for imprisonment for contempt of court.
It has not been possible to provide information in relation to Leeds Crown Court or Leeds Magistrates’ Court. Data are not recorded in a way that enables HMCTS to identify all such cases without checking every case file and every daily list since 1 November which would involve disproportionate costs.
Details of contempt of court hearings are not always held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the public. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and any warrant retained on file. Those not relating to a specific case will be recorded on daily lists and any warrants stored along with other orders. Local practices vary as to how contempts of court are recorded and stored.
HMCTS have checked records of cases heard since November 2014 in relation to Sheffield County Court, High Court sitting at Sheffield and Sheffield Family Court. For those courts, HMCTS have identified no cases where a committal order was made for imprisonment for contempt of court.
It has not been possible to provide information in relation to Sheffield Crown Court or Sheffield Magistrates’ Court. Data are not recorded in a way that enables HMCTS to identify all such cases without checking every case file and every daily list since 1 November which would involve disproportionate costs.
Details of contempt of court hearings are not always held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the public. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and any warrant retained on file. Those not relating to a specific case will be recorded on daily lists and any warrants stored along with other orders. Local practices vary as to how contempts of court are recorded and stored.
HMCTS have checked records of cases heard since November 2014 in relation to Bristol County Court, High Court sitting at Bristol and Bristol Family Court. For those courts, HMCTS has identified cases where committal orders were made for imprisonment for contempt of court. Details are contained in the table below. The contemnors may not have been present at court and therefore may not necessarily have begun their term of imprisonment straight away. This data is management information and has been collated specifically to answer this question.
Court | Judge | Date | Period |
Bristol County Court | Deputy District Judge Paddison | 27/11/14 | 4 weeks |
Bristol County Court | Deputy District Judge Hall | 5/12/14 | 12 weeks |
It has not been possible to provide information in relation to Bristol Crown Court or Bristol Magistrates’ Court. Data is not recorded in a way that enables HMCTS to identify all such cases without checking every case file and every daily list since 1 November, which would involve disproportionate costs.
Statistics on offenders recalled and returned to custody are published quarterly in the Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) bulletin. In accordance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics dates for future releases of this bulletin have been pre-announced in the Department’s statistical publication schedule. This is available online at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/about/statistics
As part of the latest release of OMSQ, my Department published a consultation document and set of statistical tables proposing how this information on recalls could be presented in the future. These new tables aim to ensure that the changes this Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme have made in this area can be monitored. These documents are available online at the link below:
The proposed set of statistical tables do not currently include a separate breakdown for recalls by Community Rehabilitation Companies activated during the licence period and supervision period. I have asked my officials to consider this request, alongside other consultation responses, as they develop the final tables that will be included with the next edition of Offender Management Statistics Quarterly which is due to be published on 30 April 2015.
Details of contempt of court hearings are not held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a wide variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the press. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and the warrant retained on file. Those not relating to specific cases will be recorded on daily lists and warrants stored along with other orders.
In order to identify all cases where a contempt of court occurred in every Crown Court centre, County Court centre, Family Court centre, magistrates’ court and the Royal Courts of Justice, HMCTS would have to manually check daily records for each courtroom at every court centre for the 14 months from January 2014 to February 2015. This would incur disproportionate costs.
The Royal Courts of Justice has 122 court rooms which are available for use by the High Court. The Birmingham Civil Justice Centre has 56 court rooms available for use by the High Court, family court and the county court. The use of a courtroom for any particular case will be a matter for listing and the judiciary.
In order to answer 223311 Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) would have to manually check every court log from 1 May 2013 to the present at Birmingham County Court, Birmingham Family Court and the High Court at Birmingham. Birmingham County Court and Birmingham Family Court between them heard in excess of 24,000 cases, each of which would have to be manually checked for any hearings for contempt of court.
HMCTS have been able to check records of cases heard since November 2014, and identified those where committal orders were made for imprisonment for contempt of court. The contemnors weren’t all present at court and did not necessarily begin their term of imprisonment straight away. There were none at Birmingham Family Court. Details of committal orders made for imprisonment for contempt of court at Birmingham County Court and High Court since 1 November 2014 can be found in the table below. This data has been collated specifically to answer this question and has not been checked to the standard of Official Statistics.
Court | Judge | Date | Period |
Birmingham High Court | HHJ Purle QC | 13-2-15 | 6 weeks |
Birmingham County Court | DJ Rich TD | 7-11-14 | 8 weeks |
Birmingham County Court | HHJ McKenna | 19-11-14 | 16 weeks |
Birmingham County Court | HHJ McKenna | 15-1-15 | 18 weeks |
Birmingham County Court | HHJ McKenna | 15-1-15 | 25 weeks |
Birmingham County Court | DJ Ingram | 30-1-15 | 24 weeks |
Birmingham County Court | DJ Shorthose | 13-2-15 | 26 weeks |
Details of the gender of those receiving non molestation orders (ex-parte and with notice), and occupancy orders (ex-parte and with notice) since 2011 can only be obtained by manually checking every case file at disproportionate costs.
Figures requested for non molestation and occupancy orders applied for by each firm of solicitors in courts in a) Sussex and b) West Midlands are available and provided as extracted from the central MoJ database on family cases, in the accompanying tables.
Domestic violence and abuse is unacceptable and no one should have to experience it. It is right that the family court has the power to take swift action to protect families and children from domestic abuse. We are confident that the court procedures for making non-molestation orders are sufficiently robust and in each case the court will make a decision whether to make an order based on the circumstances of the case including the need to secure the health, safety and well-being of the applicant and of any relevant child.
In order to answer 223311 Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) would have to manually check every court log from 1 May 2013 to the present at Birmingham County Court, Birmingham Family Court and the High Court at Birmingham. Birmingham County Court and Birmingham Family Court between them heard in excess of 24,000 cases, each of which would have to be manually checked for any hearings for contempt of court.
HMCTS have been able to check records of cases heard since November 2014, and identified those where committal orders were made for imprisonment for contempt of court. The contemnors weren’t all present at court and did not necessarily begin their term of imprisonment straight away. There were none at Birmingham Family Court. Details of committal orders made for imprisonment for contempt of court at Birmingham County Court and High Court since 1 November 2014 can be found in the table below. This data has been collated specifically to answer this question and has not been checked to the standard of Official Statistics.
Court | Judge | Date | Period |
Birmingham High Court | HHJ Purle QC | 13-2-15 | 6 weeks |
Birmingham County Court | DJ Rich TD | 7-11-14 | 8 weeks |
Birmingham County Court | HHJ McKenna | 19-11-14 | 16 weeks |
Birmingham County Court | HHJ McKenna | 15-1-15 | 18 weeks |
Birmingham County Court | HHJ McKenna | 15-1-15 | 25 weeks |
Birmingham County Court | DJ Ingram | 30-1-15 | 24 weeks |
Birmingham County Court | DJ Shorthose | 13-2-15 | 26 weeks |
Details of contempt of court hearings are not held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a wide variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the press. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and the warrant retained on file. Those not relating to specific cases will be recorded on daily lists and warrants stored along with other orders.
The High Court in London has been able to check its records since November 2014 and have imprisoned two people for contempt of court, both of which were heard in open court. The details are provided in the table below:
Division | Judge | Date | Period |
Queens Bench | HHJ Seymour | 20-11-14 | 3 Months |
Chancery | Justice Asplin | 2-2-15 | 3 Months |
However, in order to identify any cases where a contempt of court occurred in the courts in Birmingham HMCTS would have to manually check every court file at each court for the relevant period. This would incur disproportionate costs.
Whilst prisons log the offence for which prisoners are sent to prison, they do not record the details that have been requested. In order to obtain the requested information, the individual records of all prisoners currently held in prisons, together with those that have been discharged during the period requested, would need to be located and individually checked. This would incur disproportionate costs.
Details of contempt of court hearings are not held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a wide variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the press. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and the warrant retained on file. Those not relating to specific cases will be recorded on daily lists and warrants stored along with other orders.
The High Court in London has been able to check its records since November 2014 and have imprisoned two people for contempt of court, both of which were heard in open court. The details are provided in the table below:
Division | Judge | Date | Period |
Queens Bench | HHJ Seymour | 20-11-14 | 3 Months |
Chancery | Justice Asplin | 2-2-15 | 3 Months |
However, in order to identify any cases where a contempt of court occurred in the courts in Birmingham HMCTS would have to manually check every court file at each court for the relevant period. This would incur disproportionate costs.
Whilst prisons log the offence for which prisoners are sent to prison, they do not record the details that have been requested. In order to obtain the requested information, the individual records of all prisoners currently held in prisons, together with those that have been discharged during the period requested, would need to be located and individually checked. This would incur disproportionate costs.
Non-molestation orders are an important form of protection for those suffering or at risk of domestic violence. Legal aid funds applications, regardless of the applicant’s means. We accept current orders, or those made in the previous 24 months as the evidence required to access legal aid in private family law matters.
The MoJ keeps the impacts of legal aid reforms under review. While it is true that the number of non-molestation orders applied for through the courts has increased since implementation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, published data does not support the position that this is due to such orders being a form of acceptable evidence of domestic violence required to access legal aid funding in private family law child or finance arrangement matters. We are confident that the court procedures for making non-molestation orders are sufficiently robust.
The Ministry of Justice has commissioned an extensive research programme to investigate individual behavioural responses following the legal aid reforms. This will provide robust findings on the prevalence of social and civil justice problems and the ways in which people resolve these problems both within and outside of the justice system. Findings from this programme are expected in Autumn 2015.
We have been clear that there needs to be more openness in the Family Courts and are grateful to the President of the Family Division for his ongoing work on this issue. On contempt, the Guidance issued in 2013 by the Lord Chief Justice and President of the Family Division made clear that contempt decisions must be announced in public. Where a hearing for committal is exceptionally held in private, the judge must set out the reasons for doing so in public. Judgments are posted on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute’s website. Information on the courts who commit people to prison for contempt is already collected and recorded where supplied, and this guidance will result in greater consistency in the information which can be collected. The Ministry of Justice does not hold information on cases of imprisonment for contempt of court where there has been no published judgment on BAILII. BAILII is not a Government publication.
We have been clear that there needs to be more openness in the Family Courts and are grateful to the President of the Family Division for his ongoing work on this issue. On contempt, the Guidance issued in 2013 by the Lord Chief Justice and President of the Family Division made clear that contempt decisions must be announced in public. Where a hearing for committal is exceptionally held in private, the judge must set out the reasons for doing so in public. Judgments are posted on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute’s website. Information on the courts who commit people to prison for contempt is already collected and recorded where supplied, and this guidance will result in greater consistency in the information which can be collected. The Ministry of Justice does not hold information on cases of imprisonment for contempt of court where there has been no published judgment on BAILII. BAILII is not a Government publication.
The table below sets out the number of people who were received into custody for contempt of court between May 2013 and March 2014 (the latest available figures). Contempt of court covers a wide variety of conduct which undermines or has the potential to undermine the course of justice.
Receptions into prison (1) for contempt of court, May 2013-March 2014, England and Wales
May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13
Contempt of Court 11 8 13 14 7 12
Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14
7 6 8 7 8
(1) This excludes imprisonment in court cells and police cells
These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.