Asked by: Philip Hollobone (Conservative - Kettering)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of offenders on licence after fixed-term recall (a) re-offended and (b) breached their licence conditions and were recalled for a fixed term again in each of the last five years.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
The only lawful basis for recalling an offender on licence to custody is by way of response to a breach of one or more licence conditions. In some cases, the breach of licence conditions will be associated with some alleged further offending. Whilst information about offenders who receive a further fixed term recall is held, to produce the proportion of those who had received more than one fixed term recall could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Public protection is our priority. Offenders on licence are subject to strict licence conditions and supervision.
Where offenders are eligible for a fixed-term recall, they may be recalled to prison on a standard recall, which is the only type of recall available for those offenders ineligible for a fixed-term recall (such as those on a life licence). Where they receive a standard recall, they are liable to serve the rest of their sentence in prison.
The decision to recall is taken on the professional advice of senior probation staff.
From the data available, I can report that the following number of offenders were recalled multiple times in each year, on a fixed-term recall, on the same sentence. In each decision in every case, the probation officer will have established that the offender was eligible for a fixed-term recall and will have judged, based on the available evidence, that a fixed-term recall was the necessary and proportionate response to the breach of licence condition(s).
Year | Number of offenders |
2014 | 2606 |
2015 | 2644 |
2016 | 1387 |
2017 | 2258 |
2018 | 2362 |
**The figures in this table 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.
Asked by: Philip Hollobone (Conservative - Kettering)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of recalls to prison resulted in (a) fixed-term recall and (b) standard recall in the latest period for which figures are available.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
For the period 1 January 2019 to 31 March 2019 there were 2522 fixed term recalls (41%) and 3646 standard recalls (59%).
Where offenders are eligible for a fixed-term recall, their probation officer may decide that a fixed-term recall is the proportionate and necessary response to a breach of licence conditions. If not, they will be recalled to prison on a standard recall, which is the only type of recall available as a response for offenders ineligible for a fixed-term recall. Where offenders are recalled on a standard recall, they are liable to serve the rest of their sentence in prison.
The decision to recall is taken on the professional advice of senior probation staff.
Asked by: Philip Hollobone (Conservative - Kettering)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average length of sentence served by people convicted of murder was in each of the last five years.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
The information you ask for is routinely published and therefore available in the public domain, however, I have provided it below for ease of reference. The table shows the average time served by individuals sentenced to mandatory life, the only sentence available to the Courts for those convicted of murder, who were released from custody in each of the last five years.
2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 |
17 | 16 | 16 | 17 | 17 |
As with any large-scale recording system, administrative IT systems are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Public protection is our priority. It is for the independent Parole Board to review the detention of those prisoners serving mandatory life sentences who have completed their tariff period. The Board will direct the release of these prisoners only if it is satisfied that the levels of risk posed to the general public are reduced enough that the National Probation Service and its partner agencies can safely manage them in the community under supervision.
Asked by: Philip Hollobone (Conservative - Kettering)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people serving suspended sentences were made subject to an electronic monitoring condition, broken down by offence; and on how many occasions was that condition breached in each of the last five years.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
Electronic Monitoring (EM), both of curfews and using satellite enabled tags to monitor an individual’s whereabouts, is a vital tool in protecting the public and robustly monitoring offenders in the community. It supports probation staff and the police in managing offenders and defendants safely in the community, delivering the orders of the court and helping to tackle the problems which lead to offending.
The below table shows the number of suspended sentence orders with an EM requirement by offence type. Data is only available from 2016.
Summary motoringÈ
Violence against the personÈNon-compliance of ordersÈFailed Bail condition È
Failed Bail condition È
Suspended sentence orders with an electronic monitoring requirement by offence type(1) | 2016/17 | 2017/18 | 2018/19 |
Criminal damage and arson | 241 | 172 | 117 |
Drug offences | 1021 | 906 | 764 |
Fraud offences | 461 | 389 | 284 |
Miscellaneous crimes against society | 1093 | 952 | 664 |
Offence not recorded | 83 | 46 | 23 |
Possession of weapons | 538 | 561 | 656 |
Public order offences | 312 | 295 | 259 |
Robbery | 546 | 579 | 470 |
Sexual offences | 214 | 239 | 183 |
Summary motoring | 1141 | 1045 | 761 |
Theft offences | 1093 | 886 | 495 |
Violence against the person | 2030 | 1647 | 1312 |
Non-compliance of orders | 1064 | 896 | 701 |
Failed Bail condition | 140 | 114 | 61 |
Total | 9977 | 8727 | 6750 |
The below table shows the number of tagged subjects who failed to comply with their suspended sentence order electronic monitoring requirement at least once. Data on compliance is only available for completed suspended sentence orders.
| 2016/17(3) | 2017/18 | 2018/19 |
Total completed suspended sentence orders with an electronic monitoring requirement with equip install(2)(3) | 7421 | 8193 | 6430 |
Compliance | 2585 | 3040 | 2666 |
Non-compliance | 4836 | 5153 | 3764 |
2016/17(3) 2017/18 2018/19
Total completed suspended sentence orders with an electronic monitoring requirement with equip install(2)(3) 7421 8193 6430
Compliance 2585 3040 2666
Non-compliance 4836 5153 3764
(1) Derived from electronic monitoring new starts files
(2) Derived from number of completions of orders with equipment on
(3) Electronic monitoring completions data only available from June 2016 onwards. A person may have more than one completion.
Some orders are for multiple offences, in these cases orders have been assigned to first offence type recorded on the orders.
Note for reference: Failed bail conditions = not surrendering to bail, and non-compliance of orders = BREACH OF ACTION PLAN ORDER, Breach of Criminal Behaviour Order, Breach of Restraining order, Failure to attend supervision appointments, Failure to comply with Notification Requirements, FAILURE TO NOTIFY OF CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES etc.
If a subject on tag does not comply with an Electronic Monitoring condition or requirement, for example by being absent during curfew hours or tampering with a tag, an instantaneous alert is generated that is sent to Electronic Monitoring Services (EMS). The appropriate authorities decide, based on the evidence, whether the non-compliance event constitutes a breach and if so what action should be taken. The nature of breaches vary, and not all non-compliance events are classed as formal breaches requiring further action – for example, if the subject was at hospital or in custody at the time, and therefore unable to return to their curfew location in time for their curfew. While the majority of non-compliance events will generate an alert than can lead to a breach there are a range of other circumstances that can lead to breach action being taken.
Asked by: Philip Hollobone (Conservative - Kettering)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Answer of 20 June 2019 to Question 267275 on Offenders: Electronic Tagging, how many events were classed as formal breaches requiring further action.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
Electronic monitoring, both of curfews and using satellite enabled tags to monitor an individual’s whereabouts, is a vital tool in protecting the public and robustly monitoring offenders in the community. It supports probation staff and the police in managing offenders and defendants safely in the community, delivering the orders of the court and helping to tackle the problems which lead to offending. Data that identifies the number of non-compliance events that lead to breach action is not held centrally and could only be identified at a disproportionate cost. |
Asked by: Philip Hollobone (Conservative - Kettering)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Answer of 03 October 2019 to Question 292174 on Re-offenders: Homicide, how many offenders under statutory supervision have been charged with serious further offences, broken down by offence, in each of the last five years.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
The table below sets out the number of offenders under the statutory supervision of the NPS and CRCs who were charged with a serious further offence, broken down by offence in each of the last five years.
SFO offence | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 |
Arson with intent to endanger life | 15 | 15 | 16 | 20 | 18 |
Assault by penetration | 24 | 30 | 35 | 37 | 15 |
Attempt or conspiracy to commit murder | 46 | 54 | 60 | 85 | 79 |
Aggravated Burglary | 24 | 22 | 41 | 57 | 35 |
Causing death by dangerous/careless driving/aggravated vehicle taking | 5 | 7 | 12 | 10 | 16 |
False imprisonment | 11 | 10 | 25 | 29 | 17 |
Firearms offences including possession with intent | 19 | 18 | 12 | 16 | 17 |
Kidnapping | 23 | 15 | 14 | 22 | 28 |
Manslaughter | 8 | 5 | 13 | 16 | 13 |
Murder | 71 | 69 | 86 | 114 | 132 |
Offences under the Explosive Substances Act | 0 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 2 |
Other offences against the person | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Other qualifying sexual offences | 26 | 36 | 26 | 38 | 21 |
Other serious violent offence | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
Other specified offence causing death | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Rape | 172 | 217 | 245 | 242 | 130 |
Robbery with firearm | 8 | 13 | 8 | 15 | 13 |
Under 13 sexual offences including rape | 27 | 34 | 25 | 32 | 23 |
Total | 481 | 548 | 624 | 740 | 562 |
You have also asked for what reason the figures on the number of offenders convicted of murder, who at the time they committed the offence were being supervised on a life licence between 2016 and 2018 are different from the figures for offenders released from a life sentence for murder who went on to commit another murder while on life licence in the same period.
The figures in PQ 267272 relate to the number of offenders being supervised on life licence, not restricted to those on life licence for a mandatory life sentence for the offence of murder, charged in the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 and subsequently convicted of murder.
The corresponding figures stated in PQ 292174 are lower because they refer to the number of offenders released in 2016, 2017 and 2018 on life licence following a conviction for murder who have since been convicted of another murder.
Asked by: Philip Hollobone (Conservative - Kettering)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Answer of 3 October to Question 292174 on Re-offenders: Homicide and the Answer of 28 June 2019 to Question 267272 on Homicide, for what reason the figures on the number of offenders convicted of murder, who at the time they committed the offence were being supervised on a life licence between 2016 and 2018 are different from the figures for offenders released from a life sentence for murder who went on to commit another murder while on life licence in the same period.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
The table below sets out the number of offenders under the statutory supervision of the NPS and CRCs who were charged with a serious further offence, broken down by offence in each of the last five years.
SFO offence | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 |
Arson with intent to endanger life | 15 | 15 | 16 | 20 | 18 |
Assault by penetration | 24 | 30 | 35 | 37 | 15 |
Attempt or conspiracy to commit murder | 46 | 54 | 60 | 85 | 79 |
Aggravated Burglary | 24 | 22 | 41 | 57 | 35 |
Causing death by dangerous/careless driving/aggravated vehicle taking | 5 | 7 | 12 | 10 | 16 |
False imprisonment | 11 | 10 | 25 | 29 | 17 |
Firearms offences including possession with intent | 19 | 18 | 12 | 16 | 17 |
Kidnapping | 23 | 15 | 14 | 22 | 28 |
Manslaughter | 8 | 5 | 13 | 16 | 13 |
Murder | 71 | 69 | 86 | 114 | 132 |
Offences under the Explosive Substances Act | 0 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 2 |
Other offences against the person | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Other qualifying sexual offences | 26 | 36 | 26 | 38 | 21 |
Other serious violent offence | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
Other specified offence causing death | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Rape | 172 | 217 | 245 | 242 | 130 |
Robbery with firearm | 8 | 13 | 8 | 15 | 13 |
Under 13 sexual offences including rape | 27 | 34 | 25 | 32 | 23 |
Total | 481 | 548 | 624 | 740 | 562 |
You have also asked for what reason the figures on the number of offenders convicted of murder, who at the time they committed the offence were being supervised on a life licence between 2016 and 2018 are different from the figures for offenders released from a life sentence for murder who went on to commit another murder while on life licence in the same period.
The figures in PQ 267272 relate to the number of offenders being supervised on life licence, not restricted to those on life licence for a mandatory life sentence for the offence of murder, charged in the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 and subsequently convicted of murder.
The corresponding figures stated in PQ 292174 are lower because they refer to the number of offenders released in 2016, 2017 and 2018 on life licence following a conviction for murder who have since been convicted of another murder.
Asked by: Philip Hollobone (Conservative - Kettering)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Answer of 3 October 2019 to Question 292174 on Re-offenders: Homicide, how many lifers on licence have been subsequently returned to prison on (a) fixed term recall and (b) standard recall.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
Public protection is our priority. Offenders on licence are subject to strict licence conditions and supervision. They can also be recalled potentially to serve the rest of their sentence in prison if they breach the terms of their release.
The legislation allowing Fixed Term Recalls (Criminal Justice Act 2003) does not apply to offenders on a life sentence; consequently, offenders on a life licence may receive only a standard recall.
Published data recording the number of offenders on a life licence returned (recalled) to prison each year is available from 2010 and is set out in the table below:
2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 |
95 | 118 | 124 | 174 | 201 | 212 | 212 | 222 | 288 |
Asked by: Philip Hollobone (Conservative - Kettering)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners have been convicted of a serious assault on a prison officer in each of the last five years; and what additional sentence those prisoners were given as a result those assaults.
Answered by Lucy Frazer - Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
It is not possible to identify the proportion of serious assaults on prison staff that resulted in a criminal conviction in each of the last five years. Detailed information may be held on court record but to be able to identify these cases we would have to access individual court records which would be of disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Philip Hollobone (Conservative - Kettering)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people convicted of homicide did not receive a custodial sentence in each of the last five years.
Answered by Chris Philp - Minister of State (Home Office)
The Ministry of Justice has published information on the sentencing outcomes for offenders convicted of homicide offences (murder, manslaughter and infanticide) in each of the last 5 years. This information is available in the Outcomes by Offence data tool available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/802314/outcomes-by-offence-tool-2018.xlsx
Filter ‘Offence’ to ‘1 Murder’, ‘4.1 Manslaughter’ and ‘4.2 Infanticide’.