Offenders Electronic Tagging

Written Question

Offenders: Electronic Tagging

Tuesday 23rd July 2019

Asked by: Kate Green (Labour - Stretford and Urmston)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 12 July 2019 to Question 273385 on Offenders: Electronic Tagging, when he plans to publish the quantitative process evaluation of the GPS Pilot.

Answered by Robert Buckland

The quantitative process evaluation of the GPS location monitoring Pilot was published alongside a speech on sentencing by my Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Justice on Thursday 18 July. The evaluation can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/process-evaluation-of-the-global-positioning-system-electronic-monitoring-pilot-quantitative-findings The Secretary of State also announced in his speech on 18 July that we are planning to roll out a variation of location monitoring to children.

Written Question

Offenders: Electronic Tagging

Friday 12th July 2019

Asked by: Kate Green (Labour - Stretford and Urmston)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Government report entitled Process evaluation of the Global Positioning System (GPS) Electronic Monitoring Pilot: Qualitative findings, published 16 February 2019 whether the research in that report covers both male and female offenders.

Answered by Edward Argar - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Process evaluation of the Global Positioning System (GPS) Electronic Monitoring Pilot: Qualitative findings included both male and female offenders and defendants. A forthcoming quantitative process evaluation of the GPS Pilot will contain analysis of Management Information gathered over the course of the pilot, including by gender. During the pilot, there were 586 tagging instances involving 20 female wearers and 566 male wearers.

Location monitoring can robustly monitor male and female offenders and defendants in the community, and provide an effective alternative to custody. If used as an alternative to custody the tags can be particularly effective in mitigating the disruptive impact of imprisonment on women with children. This is emphasised in our guidance to stakeholders.

Written Question

Offenders: Electronic Tagging

Friday 5th July 2019

Asked by: Liz Saville Roberts (Plaid Cymru - Dwyfor Meirionnydd)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people with a community order were made subject to an electronic monitoring condition; and on how many occasions was that condition breached in each of the last five years.

Answered by Robert Buckland

Electronic Monitoring (EM) 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 them tackle the problems which lead to offending.

The table below shows the total number of people in each year subject to EM as a requirement of a Community Order.⁽¹⁾ Data is only available from June 2016 onwards.

	2016/17	2017/18
Number of people in England and Wales with Community Orders with EM equipment installed⁽²⁾	18,081	16,098

Data on compliance is only available for completed Community Orders. The table below shows how many Community Orders with EM were completed in each year, and in how many of these a tagged subject failed to comply with their EM requirement at least once. Please note that these figures concern the monitoring of curfew requirements only, not GPS location monitoring requirements.

	2016/17	2017/18
Total completed Community Orders with EM equipment installed⁽²⁾⁽³⁾	15,547	15,987
Compliance	6,065	6,645
Non-compliance	9,482	9,342

(1) The figures provided in these tables do not include data from the GPS pilot, which commenced in October 2016 and completed in March 2018. A total of 17 tags were issued to individuals as part of a Community Order during the Pilot. An independent qualitative process evaluation of the GPS location monitoring pilot was published in February 2019: ‘Process evaluation of the Global Positioning System (GPS) Electronic Monitoring Pilot - Qualitative findings’: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/process-evaluation-of-the-global-positioning-system-gps-electronic-monitoring-pilot. A quantitative process evaluation of the GPS Pilot containing analysis of Management Information gathered over the course of the pilot is currently undergoing quality assurance and being finalised. This will include information on compliance.

(2) Derived from caseload files with equipment on (3) Derived from number of completions of Community Orders with equipment on (4) A person may have more than one completion. Figures after March 2018 will be published in the HMPPS Digest in July 2019.

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

Written Question

Offenders: Electronic Tagging

Friday 17th May 2019

Asked by: Philip Davies (Conservative - Shipley)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, who has the power to amend the conditions of (a) bail and (b) court orders which are the subject of a GPS tag.

Answered by Robert Buckland

Once an individual is produced before a court it is only the court that has the power to amend the conditions of bail and court orders which are the subject of a GPS tag.

The police can impose (limited) bail conditions both pre-and post-charge prior to an individual being produced before a court, although this cannot extend to any form of electronic monitoring.

Written Question

Offenders: Electronic Tagging

Monday 29th April 2019

Asked by: Mary Glindon (Labour - North Tyneside)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 28 March 2019 to Question 234706 on Offenders: Electronic Tagging, how many offenders have taken part in each of the GPS electronic tagging pilots in each month since the pilots started.

Answered by Rory Stewart

The tables below provide information on the number of individuals on a GPS tag per month during the Ministry of Justice GPS pilot. The Pilot ran in two regional police force clusters: the Midlands (Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire and West Midlands) and BeNCH (Bedfordshire, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire). The learning from the Pilot has been incorporated into the new national location monitoring service announced by the Secretary of State on 16 February. This will help strengthen supervision, enforce exclusion zones and give victims greater peace of mind. More detail about the Pilot, including the cohorts involved, can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/process-evaluation-of-the-global-positioning-system-gps-electronic-monitoring-pilot

The numbers of new starts in the Pilot dropped to zero a few months before the end of the Pilot. This was because the Pilot was scheduled to last for 18 months, ending on 31 March 2018. As most electronic monitoring orders last several months, the MoJ imposed a cut-off date for fitting new tags three months before the Pilot was due to end. This ensured that decision makers were not, for example, ordering new tags to be fitted only a few weeks before they would have to be removed.

Table 1 shows the total number of individuals wearing a GPS tag at the end of every month.

Table 2 shows the number of new GPS starts each month.

Written Question

Offenders: Electronic Tagging

Wednesday 24th April 2019

Asked by: Mary Glindon (Labour - North Tyneside)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many offenders have been given electronic tagging orders in each month since January 2013.

Answered by Rory Stewart

Electronic Monitoring is an effective criminal justice tool. It gives those on a tag a chance to maintain family ties and remain in work or education while providing additional safeguards.

The table below provides details of the average number of individuals on electronic tagging orders from January 2013 to March 2018. This is Management Information, is not published and has not had the level of scrutiny and quality assurance as for Official Statistics data.

The table below also provides information on how many notifications for new orders were issued every month from April 2014 to March 2018. The table from where the data is drawn can be found in Table 12.4 at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/annual-hm-prison-and-probation-service-digest-2017-to-2018. Data for 2014 is of poor quality and not available. Data from April 2018 to March 2019 will be published in July 2019.

Average number of offenders on electronic tagging orders in England and Wales, in each month January 2013 - March 2018 ^(1)(2)(3)
Monthly new electronic monitoring order notifications in England and Wales, in each month from April 2014 to March 2018 ^(1)(4)(5)

Month	Average number of offenders on EM order	Total notifications
July 2013	14,555
August 2013	14,384
September 2013	14,185
October 2013	14,284
November 2013	14,551
December 2013	14,585
January 2014	14,042
February 2014	14,096
March 2014	14,267
April 2014	14,224	5,975
May 2014	13,987	5,753
June 2014	13,879	5,564
July 2014	13,940	5,982
August 2014	13,912	5,635
September 2014	13,843	5,817
October 2014	13,973	6,353
November 2014	14,294	6,135
December 2014	14,446	6,236
January 2015	13,907	6,316
February 2015	13,902	5,872
March 2015	13,925	6,292
April 2015	13,803	5,804
May 2015	13,589	5,797
June 2015	13,516	6,218
July 2015	13,393	6,150
August 2015	13,389	5,310
September 2015	13,119	5,937
October 2015	13,197	5,802
November 2015	13,329	5,814
December 2015	13,415	5,647
January 2016	12,914	5,597
February 2016	12,781	5,585
March 2016	12,684	5,543
April 2016	12,614	5,458
May 2016	12,432	5,239
June 2016	12,223	5,373
July 2016	11,896	5,152
August 2016	11,628	5,237
September 2016	11,168	5,079
October 2016	11,222	5,029
November 2016	11,443	5,545
December 2016	11,743	5,149
January 2017	11,395	5,606
February 2017	11,559	4,982
March 2017	11,363	5,606
April 2017	11,350	4,576
May 2017	11,052	5,204
June 2017	10,843	4,968
July 2017	10,851	4,761
August 2017	10,713	4,803
September 2017	10,620	4,767
October 2017	10,781	4,771
November 2017	10,865	5,012
December 2017	10,961	4,197
January 2018	10,566	5,397
February 2018	10,925	4,718
March 2018	11,064	4,954

(1) These figures are drawn from administrative data systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system.

(2) Monitored subjects are unique subjects with a live EM order and with a tag fitted and Home Monitoring Unit (HMU) installed.

(3) Note that from the 12/07/2016 the Manchester caseload definition changed to include subjects with an active EM order. Previously it only included subjects with an active EM service. This means that subjects on a break in their service are included in the Manchester figures. This was done to align the Manchester and Norwich caseload definitions.

(4) One subject may be given multiple orders over the course of the year. In these figures each is counted individually. i.e. one person with four orders counts as four.

(5) Comprises notifications of new electronic monitoring orders received by the EM contractor that started between April 2014 and March 2018. In some cases the monitoring equipment may never have been installed, e.g. if the subject is taken into custody prior to installation. These cases are included in the total.

Written Question

Offenders: Electronic Tagging

Wednesday 24th April 2019

Asked by: Mary Glindon (Labour - North Tyneside)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average number of offenders on electronic tagging orders has been in each month since January 2013.

Answered by Rory Stewart

Electronic Monitoring is an effective criminal justice tool. It gives those on a tag a chance to maintain family ties and remain in work or education while providing additional safeguards.

Average number of offenders on electronic tagging orders in England and Wales, in each month January 2013 - March 2018 ^(1)(2)(3)
Monthly new electronic monitoring order notifications in England and Wales, in each month from April 2014 to March 2018 ^(1)(4)(5)

Month	Average number of offenders on EM order	Total notifications
July 2013	14,555
August 2013	14,384
September 2013	14,185
October 2013	14,284
November 2013	14,551
December 2013	14,585
January 2014	14,042
February 2014	14,096
March 2014	14,267
April 2014	14,224	5,975
May 2014	13,987	5,753
June 2014	13,879	5,564
July 2014	13,940	5,982
August 2014	13,912	5,635
September 2014	13,843	5,817
October 2014	13,973	6,353
November 2014	14,294	6,135
December 2014	14,446	6,236
January 2015	13,907	6,316
February 2015	13,902	5,872
March 2015	13,925	6,292
April 2015	13,803	5,804
May 2015	13,589	5,797
June 2015	13,516	6,218
July 2015	13,393	6,150
August 2015	13,389	5,310
September 2015	13,119	5,937
October 2015	13,197	5,802
November 2015	13,329	5,814
December 2015	13,415	5,647
January 2016	12,914	5,597
February 2016	12,781	5,585
March 2016	12,684	5,543
April 2016	12,614	5,458
May 2016	12,432	5,239
June 2016	12,223	5,373
July 2016	11,896	5,152
August 2016	11,628	5,237
September 2016	11,168	5,079
October 2016	11,222	5,029
November 2016	11,443	5,545
December 2016	11,743	5,149
January 2017	11,395	5,606
February 2017	11,559	4,982
March 2017	11,363	5,606
April 2017	11,350	4,576
May 2017	11,052	5,204
June 2017	10,843	4,968
July 2017	10,851	4,761
August 2017	10,713	4,803
September 2017	10,620	4,767
October 2017	10,781	4,771
November 2017	10,865	5,012
December 2017	10,961	4,197
January 2018	10,566	5,397
February 2018	10,925	4,718
March 2018	11,064	4,954

(2) Monitored subjects are unique subjects with a live EM order and with a tag fitted and Home Monitoring Unit (HMU) installed.

(4) One subject may be given multiple orders over the course of the year. In these figures each is counted individually. i.e. one person with four orders counts as four.

Written Question

Offenders: Electronic Tagging

Wednesday 17th April 2019

Asked by: Mary Glindon (Labour - North Tyneside)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 28 March 2019 to Question 234706 on Offenders: Electronic Tagging, how many monitoring starts under the existing monitoring scheme there have been in each of the last five years.

Answered by Edward Argar - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Information on the number of electronic monitoring starts for 2015 to 2018 is contained within the table below. Data for the year ending March 2019 will be provided in the next HMPPS Annual Digest, due to be published in July 2019. Data for 2014 is of poor quality and not available.

Table: New electronic monitoring order notifications by order type, England and Wales, for the years ending March 2015 to March 2018 ^{(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)}

Numbers

12 months ending March

Type of Order

2015

2016

2017

2018

TOTAL NOTIFICATIONS

71,930

69,204

63,455

58,128

Bail

20,143

18,618

15,707

15,008

Court Sentence

40,798

39,665

36,811

30,570

Post Release

10,194

10,067

10,390

12,005

Immigration

775

822

503

492

Specials

Source: EMS Contractor data

r - Figures have been revised since previous reports were published. The differences are generally small and due to the provisional nature of the data when published previously.

(2) Includes orders for subjects on bail, sentenced to a court order, released from custody on licence, immigration orders managed by the Home Office, and a small number of Special orders.

(3) One subject may be given multiple orders over the course of the year. In these figures each is counted individually. I.e. one person with four orders counts as four.

(4) Comprises notifications of new electronic monitoring orders received by the EM contractor that started between April 2014 and March 2018. In some cases the monitoring equipment may never have been installed, e.g. if the subject is taken into custody prior to installation. These cases are included in the total.

(5) Figures for the year ending March 2018 are provisional

Written Question

Offenders: Electronic Tagging

Wednesday 17th April 2019

Asked by: Mary Glindon (Labour - North Tyneside)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 28 March 2019 to Question 234706 on Offenders: Electronic Tagging, whether new policy guidelines will be issued to assist decision makers on deciding which offenders will be given GPS tags.

Answered by Edward Argar - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

GPS tags are available nationally for eligible post-custody cohorts. For Home Detention Curfew cases, the prison governor is the decision maker. We have provided prison governors with guidance about the capabilities and uses of location monitoring. For prisoners serving a Life Sentence, Imprisonment for Public Protection or Extended Determinate Sentence, the decision rests with the Parole Board. We have provided the Parole Board with information about the capabilities and uses of location monitoring.

GPS tags are also being rolled out for use in courts, as a requirement of a Community Order, a Suspended Sentence Order or Court-imposed bail. In these cases, the decision will rest with the Judiciary. We have provided the independent Judiciary with information about the capabilities and uses of location monitoring

Written Question

Offenders: Electronic Tagging

Wednesday 17th April 2019

Asked by: Mary Glindon (Labour - North Tyneside)

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 28 March 2019 to Question 234706 on Offenders: Electronic Tagging, who the decision-makers will be that will apply the necessary reasonableness, proportionality and necessity tests for use of the 1,000 GPS tags available at any one time.

Answered by Edward Argar - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

«
1
2
3 (current)
4
5
6
»