Asked by: Joan Ryan (The Independent Group for Change - Enfield North)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when he plans to respond to the letter from hon. Member for Enfield North of 27 August 2019 on the Government's urgent sentencing review.
Answered by Chris Philp - Shadow Home Secretary
My Rt. Hon. friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Robert Buckland has responded to the letter from hon. Member for Enfield North, on behalf of the Prime Minister.
Asked by: Joan Ryan (The Independent Group for Change - Enfield North)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, the publication of the Law Commission‘s Thirteenth Programme of Law Reform, what further steps his Department plans to take to review legislation on offensive online communications; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Lucy Frazer
Legislation that can be used to prosecute offensive online communications includes the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; the Malicious Communications Act 1988; and the Communications Act 2003. The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 made changes to the relevant offences in these last two Acts which aims to ensure that people who commit them are prosecuted and properly punished. Not all communications which cause offence are illegal.
My Department ha no current plan to introduce specific additional legislation to address offensive online communications.
Asked by: Joan Ryan (The Independent Group for Change - Enfield North)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 8 November 2016 to Question 51526, what her planned timetable is for implementation of the extra-territorial jurisdiction requirements of ratification for the Istanbul Convention.
Answered by Phillip Lee
I refer the honourable member to the Answer of 8 November 2016 to Question 51526.
Asked by: Joan Ryan (The Independent Group for Change - Enfield North)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of extending the mandatory retirement age for magistrates from 70 to 75; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Shailesh Vara
The Government position remains that a retirement age of 70 for all judicial office holders is appropriate.
A mandatory retirement age of 70 means both judges and magistrates can continue to make a contribution to society whilst allowing for regular recruitment of the judiciary.
It also enables the judiciary to have the correct number of judges and magistrates, while preventing them from retiring on an ad hoc basis, and ensuring judicial independence is protected.