Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, if she will take steps to ensure that her Department and its agencies remove all internal covid-19 related policies, restrictions and mask mandates.
Answered by Alex Chalk - Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
Throughout the pandemic, all Civil Service employers including the Attorney General’s Office (AGO), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Serious Fraud Office (SFO), Government Legal Department (GLD) and Her Majesties Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) have followed government guidance in setting out their internal COVID-19 related policies. This includes complying with the Working Safely during Coronavirus (COVID-19): Guidance which sets out the key actions organisations should take to protect employees and customers in order to reduce the risk of COVID-19 spreading in workplaces, along with carrying out health and safety risk assessments that include the ongoing risk from COVID-19.
The Government’s recent Living with COVID-19 document, sets out how and when the remaining restrictions will be lifted in England. Government guidance was subsequently amended, including the Working Safely guidance. Which alongside risk assessments, sets out further actions organisations can take to protect employees and customers in the workplace, such as ensuring adequate ventilation, frequent cleaning and asking people with COVID-19 to stay home. The guidance advises that people continue to wear face coverings in crowded and enclosed settings where they come into contact with people they do not normally meet, when rates of transmission are high. Employers will continue to align their policies accordingly. Should individuals wish to wear masks as a matter of personal choice this should be respected.
In respect to the SFO estate, The Canadian High Commission (CHC), in their capacity as landlord, have requested SFO employees, contractors and visitors continue to wear face coverings in the common areas of 2 – 4 Cockspur Street. This includes the lobby, lifts, stairs, toilets, and reception.
Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what his current policy is on the wearing of face coverings in his (a) Department, (b) departmental agencies and (c) related bodies during the covid-19 outbreak.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
Throughout the pandemic, the Civil Service, including the Attorney General’s Office (AGO), Government Legal Department (GLD), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI), have followed, and continue to follow, the latest government guidance in relation to managing the risk of COVID-19 in the workplace, including any variations between the four nations of the UK.
In England, the BEIS ‘Working Safely during coronavirus (COVID-19)’ guidance provides sensible precautions employers can take to manage risk and support their staff. The guidance is available via this link: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/working-safely-during-covid-19/offices-factories-and-labs#offices-7-2.
Whilst it is for individual employers to determine which mitigations are appropriate to adopt as they review their workplace risk assessments in light of the updated guidance. Face coverings, which are no longer required by law, are one possible mitigation employers could adopt if the situation / context warranted it.
HMCTS requires all court users to continue to wear face coverings in court buildings. The CPS’s advice to staff, which has been agreed with trade unions is that, unless exempt, all court users are required to wear a face covering in all public areas of court and tribunal buildings.
The AGO, GLD, CPS, SFO and HMCPSI fully support individuals who choose to wear a face covering in the workplace.
Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how many prosecutions for assaulting an emergency worker have related to assaults against (a) police officers, (b) NHS staff, (c) prison officers, (d) firefighters and (e) other emergency workers since the offence was introduced.
Answered by Michael Ellis
The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 is legislation that amended section39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to provide offences relating to common assault or battery committed against an emergency worker while carrying out their duties.
The CPS maintains records of the number of offences in which a CPS prosecution commenced, including offences of assaulting an emergency worker. The data provided in the table detailed below shows the total number of offences in which a prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) commenced at magistrates’ courts under the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 since it came into force on the 13th November 2018. However the CPS does not hold any central record of the details of complainants’ occupations.
| 2018/19 (Nov 18 - Mar 19) | 2019/20 |
Total offences: Criminal Justice Act 1988 and section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 {39} | 4,395 | 23,492 |
It should be noted that the figures relate to the number of offences and not the number of individual defendants. It may be the case that an individual defendant is charged with more than one offence. No data are held on the final outcome or if the charged offence was the substantive charge at finalisation.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not maintain a central record of the number of defendants charged with, or prosecuted for these offences. This information could only be obtained by examining CPS case files, which would incur disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what estimate she has made of the proportion of assaults on shop workers that were prosecuted in each of the last three years.
Answered by Michael Ellis
The CPS does not maintain a central record of complainants’ occupations, nor of the specific circumstances under which a person has been charged with an offence. This information could only be obtained by an examination of CPS case files, which would incur disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, with reference to paragraph 2.4.137 in the report entitled The Independent Review of the Metropolitan Police Service's handling of non-recent sexual offence investigations alleged against persons of public prominence, published on 4 October 2019, what assessment the CPS has made of the potential merits of seeking the prosecution of the two individuals referred to as potential witnesses A and B for perverting the course of justice and wasting police time.
Answered by Michael Ellis
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutes criminal cases that have been investigated by the police and other investigative organisations in England and Wales. If a crime is reported it is for the police to decide whether to investigate.
The CPS has not been asked to consider any charges against witness A or B, nor have they provided any early investigative advice to the police. It is a matter for the police as to whether they pursue an investigation in to witness A and witness B.
Once a case is referred to the CPS, any decision to prosecute is made in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and must meet the evidential and public interest tests.
Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, with reference to paragraph 1.37 of the report entitled The Independent Review of the Metropolitan Police Service's handling of non-recent sexual offence investigations alleged against persons of public prominence, published 4 October 2019, how many of the 159 cases of false allegations of rape or domestic violence were prosecuted; and how many of the (a) referrals and (b) subsequent prosecutions were related to (i) rape and (ii) domestic violence charges.
Answered by Michael Ellis
The Metropolitan Police Review refers to 159 cases of false allegations of rape and/or domestic violence made between January 2011 to May 2012. These were cases that had been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for a charging decision. The Review erroneously refers to the period as being between 2013-14.
The 159 cases were reviewed by the DPP and the Crown Prosecution Service published a report of these cases, entitled ‘‘Charging Perverting the Course of Justice and Wasting Police Time in Cases involving allegedly False Rape and Domestic Violence Allegations’ in 2013.
Of the 159 cases referred for a charging decision,
During the period of the review there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and 111,891 for domestic violence by the Crown Prosecution Service across England and Wales.
Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how many people have been prosecuted for (a) perverting the course of justice and (b) wasting police time in relation to false allegations of domestic abuse in the last 12 months.
Answered by Michael Ellis
The Crown Prosecution Service does not maintain a central record of prosecutions against domestic abuse complainants for perverting the course of justice and/or wasting police time. Obtaining this information would therefore require a manual review of individual case files which would incur a disproportionate cost.
The Crown Prosecution Service takes cases of domestic abuse extremely seriously and is determined to bring perpetrators to justice and ensure victims are protected from repeated offending. The Crown Prosecution Service has specific guidance for prosecutors on how to approach cases where a complaint alleging a false allegation is made. When reaching a prosecution decision Crown Prosecutors apply the two stage test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. There must be sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it must be in the public interest for a prosecution to be brought.
Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, if she will extend the current 28 day limit for appealing a sentence under the unduly lenient sentence scheme; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Michael Ellis
A referral to the Court of Appeal for consideration of a sentence as unduly lenient must be made within 28 days of the date of the sentence as set out in Schedule 3, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The 28 day statutory time limit is absolute; the statute provides no power to extend the time limit or to apply for leave to refer out of time.
There are no plans to extend the 28 day deadline. The current deadline provides an appropriate balance between the rights of victims and offenders, ensuring that offenders are not left uncertain of whether their sentence may be extended for a long period of time, whilst allowing victims sufficient time to request a review of the sentence under the scheme.
Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how many of the cases referred to her Department under the unduly lenient sentence scheme were received on the 28th day after sentence outside office hours; and what proportion of those cases were (a) accepted and (b) refused in each of the last five years for which information is available.
Answered by Michael Ellis
2015 – of the 14 sentences that were received out of time only 1 was received on the 28th day and too late for it to be actioned.
2016 – of the 28 sentences that were received out of time only 1 was received on the 28th day and too late for it to be actioned.
2017 - of the 27 sentences that were received out of time only 1 was received on the 28th day and too late for it to be actioned.
2018 - of the 31 sentences that were received out of time 2 were received on the 28th day and too late for them to be actioned.
2019 - of the 43 sentences that were received out of time only 1 was received on the 28th day and too late for it to be actioned.
Whilst referrals for sentences are received and actioned on the 28th day, those are cases that are received early enough on the day to be actioned. An unduly lenient sentence case can only be taken forward if either myself or the Attorney General has approved action (on the basis of a complete prosecution file and proper legal advice) and an application has been filed with the Court of Appeal before the expiry of the statutory 28 day deadline. None of the above cases were accepted as being within time by my office as they were received too late to be actioned and consequently they were all marked as out of time.
A referral to the Court of Appeal for consideration of a sentence as unduly lenient must be made within 28 days of the date of the sentence as set out in Schedule 3, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The 28 day statutory time limit is absolute; the statute provides no power to extend the time limit or to apply for leave to refer out of time.
Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how many of the cases referred to her Department under the unduly lenient sentence scheme were received before the 28th day after sentence time period had elapsed but outside office hours and where his office did not re-open until after that 28 day deadline had passed; and what proportion of those cases were (a) accepted and (b) refused in each of the last five years for which information is available.
Answered by Michael Ellis
2015 – of the 14 sentences that were received out of time only 1 was received on the 28th day and too late for it to be actioned.
2016 – of the 28 sentences that were received out of time only 1 was received on the 28th day and too late for it to be actioned.
2017 - of the 27 sentences that were received out of time only 1 was received on the 28th day and too late for it to be actioned.
2018 - of the 31 sentences that were received out of time 2 were received on the 28th day and too late for them to be actioned.
2019 - of the 43 sentences that were received out of time only 1 was received on the 28th day and too late for it to be actioned.
Whilst referrals for sentences are received and actioned on the 28th day, those are cases that are received early enough on the day to be actioned. An unduly lenient sentence case can only be taken forward if either myself or the Attorney General has approved action (on the basis of a complete prosecution file and proper legal advice) and an application has been filed with the Court of Appeal before the expiry of the statutory 28 day deadline. None of the above cases were accepted as being within time by my office as they were received too late to be actioned and consequently they were all marked as out of time.
A referral to the Court of Appeal for consideration of a sentence as unduly lenient must be made within 28 days of the date of the sentence as set out in Schedule 3, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The 28 day statutory time limit is absolute; the statute provides no power to extend the time limit or to apply for leave to refer out of time.