Asked by: Grahame Morris (Labour - Easington)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, if she will continue and expand the use of remote working for the Crown Prosecution Service to help tackle the caseload backlog.
Answered by Alex Chalk - Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
During the pandemic, the criminal justice system developed digitally enabled remote hearing capability, at pace, so that court-related activity could continue to the greatest degree possible.
The CPS has a fully digital casework process, and previously invested in a robust technology infrastructure which has enabled CPS staff to work remotely and engage virtually in court proceedings during this challenging period.
Recognising that listing is a judicial function, the continued development of technology, and its use to facilitate remote attendance in appropriate circumstances, presents an opportunity for gains in efficiency and flexibility in the deployment of work and people.
Asked by: Grahame Morris (Labour - Easington)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, when his Department’s current non-executive directors were appointed; what oversight officials of his Department had of the Ministerial appointments of those non-executive directors; and what assessment his Department made of the applicants' experience against the requirements for breadth and depth of experience set out in the Cabinet Office guidance on Departmental Boards of November 2014.
Answered by Michael Ellis
The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) does not have any non-executive directors sitting on its board. Whilst the AGO aligns its governance structures as closely as possible to Cabinet Office guidance, the appointment of non-executive directors would not be proportionate given the size of the AGO (headcount 54).
Asked by: Grahame Morris (Labour - Easington)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what declarations of interests have been made by his Department’s non-executive directors; and where those interests are published.
Answered by Michael Ellis
The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) does not have any non-executive directors sitting on its board. Whilst the AGO aligns its governance structures as closely as possible to Cabinet Office guidance, the appointment of non-executive directors would not be proportionate given the size of the AGO (headcount 54).
Asked by: Grahame Morris (Labour - Easington)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what financial payments his Department makes to its non-executive directors; how many times his departmental Board will meet in 2021-22; and what work the non-executive directors undertake.
Answered by Michael Ellis
The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) does not have any non-executive directors sitting on its board. Whilst the AGO aligns its governance structures as closely as possible to Cabinet Office guidance, the appointment of non-executive directors would not be proportionate given the size of the AGO (headcount 54).
Asked by: Grahame Morris (Labour - Easington)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what private companies are contracted to provide security services at his Department’s buildings that contain Ministerial private offices; and whether there are closed circuit television cameras in any Ministerial private offices within his Department's estate.
Answered by Michael Ellis
As has been the case under successive Administrations, it is not government policy to comment on security procedures in government buildings.
Asked by: Grahame Morris (Labour - Easington)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, if he will provide funding to advertise and raise public awareness of the process to refer unduly lenient sentences.
Answered by Jeremy Wright
The Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) scheme allows anyone to ask me to review certain sentences passed in the Crown Court and, where appropriate, to invite the Court of Appeal to consider increasing them.
My office already does much to publicise the scheme. We publish ULS referrals on the website and work with local and national print and broadcast media to publicise them. Details of how to refer a case appear on the web site https://www.gov.uk/ask-crown-court-sentence-review. My Office also promotes sentence increases on social media and distributes infographics online to increase public awareness.
In 2016, more victims and their families got justice than ever before, after 141 criminals had their sentences increased under the ULS scheme.
That year, we received 837 referrals, a 17% increase from the previous year, and the Solicitor General or I asked the Court of Appeal to look at 190, compared to 135 in 2015.
Asked by: Grahame Morris (Labour - Easington)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how many people have been prosecuted under the (a) Communications Act 2003, (b) Malicious Communications Act 1988 and (c) Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for offences committed online.
Answered by Robert Buckland
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not maintain a central record to show the number of prosecutions involving defendants prosecuted specifically for criminal activity on-line. This information could only be obtained by examining CPS case files, which would incur disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Grahame Morris (Labour - Easington)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, how many people have been prosecuted under the (a) Communications Act 2003, (b) Malicious Communications Act 1988 and (c) Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in each of the last five years.
Answered by Robert Buckland
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not maintain a central record of the number of defendants prosecuted for offences brought by way of the Communications Act 2003, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. This information could only be obtained by examining CPS case files, which would incur disproportionate cost.
However, information is held identifying the number of offences during the past five years in which a prosecution commenced and reached a first hearing at magistrates’ courts, rather than the number of defendants prosecuted, this is detailed in the following table.
Year | Communications Act 2003 | Malicious Communications Act 1988 | Protection from Harassment Act 1997 |
2010-2011 | 2,916 | 1,273 | 16,707 |
2011-2012 | 3,125 | 1,301 | 18,588 |
2012-2013 | 2,920 | 1,250 | 19,319 |
2013-2014 | 2,134 | 1,210 | 22,668 |
2014-2015 | 2,556 | 1,586 | 26,326 |
Data Source: CPS Case Management Information System | |||
There is no indication of the final prosecution outcome, of if the charged offence was the substantive charge at the time of finalisation. It is also often the case that an individual defendant is charged with more than one offence.