§ Mr. StrangTo ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Scottish Office figures for sexual offences covering each of the years from 1980 to 1989 inclusive, how many of the(a) convictions and (b) cautions or equivalent under the categories (i) lewd and libidinous practices and (ii) procuration are accounted for by men involved in consensual homosexual behaviour with other men over the age of 16 years, and in the cases of those convicted (1) what were the charges under which they were successfully prosecuted in each case, (2) what were the 10 highest fines imposed and (3) what were the lengths of all suspended and custodial sentences.
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonFull information is not available but (i) a charge of lewd and libidinous practices would not apply where there is consent and relates only to behaviour directed at children, (ii) there was no man in 1988 and one in 1989 in relation to whom the principal charge proved was procuration under section 80(9) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980; he was fined £75.
§ Mr. StrangTo ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in each of the years from 1980 to 1989 inclusive, how many men between the ages of 16 and 21 years were(a) convicted and (b) cautioned or the equivalent for consensual offences of (i) sodomy, (ii) attempted sodomy, (iii) gross indecency in a private place and (iv) attempted gross indecency in a private place with another man between the ages of 16 and 21 years, contrary to section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1989, and preceding or equivalent legislation; and in the cases of those convicted, how many were (1) fined and what were the 10 highest fines, (2) given suspended sentences and what was the length of each of these and (3) received custodial sentences and in each case what was the length of their sentenced terms of imprisonment or youth custody.
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonFull information is not available, but318W
- (i) a charge of sodomy is unlikely for consensual offences; the numbers of men aged 16 to 20 in relation to whom a charge of sodomy (probably non-consensual) was proved as a principal charge were one in 1988 and two in 1989. Other than one man who was sentenced in 1989 to three years in custody no man was fined or given a custodial sentence in 1988 or 1989;
- (ii) in relation to one man in the age group 16 to 20, a charge of attempted sodomy was proved as the principal charge in 1988; he was not fined or given a custodial sentence; there were none in 1989;
- (iii) for no men aged 16 to 20 was a charge of gross indecency proved as the principal charge in 1988 or 1989 but the numbers in relation to whom a homosexual charge was proved under section 80(7) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 as the principal charge were six in 1988 and three in 1989. In 1988, four men were fined £50, £75, £100 and £150; in 1989, two men were fined £50 and £175. Other than one man who was sentenced in 1988 to 30 days in custody no man received a custodial sentence in 1988 or 1989;
- (iv) in relation to no man aged 16 to 20 was a charge of attempted gross indecency proved as the principal charge in 1988 or 1989.
Information on the numbers of persons receiving an official warning, or on the ages of "other" men and whether they were consenting is not available. Information for the years prior to 1988 is not readily available. The figures for 1989 are provisional.
§ Mr. StrangTo ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in each of the years from 1980 to 1989 inclusive, how many men over the age of 21 years were(a) convicted and (b) cautioned or the equivalent for consensual offences of (i) sodomy, (ii) attempted sodomy, (iii) gross indecency in a private place and (iv) attempted gross indecency in a private place with another man between the ages of 16 and 21 years contrary to section 80 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, and preceding or equivalent legislation; and in the cases of those convicted, how many were (1) fined and what were the 10 highest fines, (2) given suspended sentences and what were the lengths of these suspended sentences in each case and (3) received custodial sentences and in each of these cases what were the lengths of the terms of imprisonment.
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonFull information is not available, but
- (i) a charge of sodomy is unlikely for consensual offences; the numbers of men aged 21 and over in relation to whom a charge of sodomy (probably non-consensual) was proved as the principal charge were six in 1988 and 11 in 1989. Custodial sentences were imposed on five men in 1988 and eight men in 1989. The durations were of 18 months, 18 months, two years, five years and seven years in 1988 and of three months, three years, three years, four years, four years, five years, five years and there was one where there is no separate duration recorded in the statistics in 1989. No men were fined in either year.
- (ii) in relation to no man aged 21 or over was a charge of attempted sodomy proved as the principal charge in 1988 or 1989;
- (iii) in relation to no man aged 21 or over was a charge of gross indecency proved as the principal charge in 1988 or 1989, but the numbers in relation to whom a homosexual charge was proved under section 80(7) of the Criminal Justice Act (Scotland) Act 1980 as the principal charge were 43 in 1988 and 38 in 1989. In 1988 38 men were fined, the 10 highest fines being £2,000, £300, £300, £250, £250, £250, £200, £200, £200 and £200; in 1989 31 men were fined, the 10 highest fines being £290, £250, £200, £200, £190, £150, £150, £130, £125 and £175. In 1988
319 three men received custodial sentences of 30 days, 30 days and four years and in 1989 one man received a custodial sentence of 60 days. - (iv) in relation to no man aged 21 or over was a charge of attempted gross indecency proved as the principal charge in 1988 or 1989.
Information on the numbers of other persons receiving an official warning, or on the ages of the "other" men and whether they were consenting, is not available. Information for the years prior to 1988 is not readily available. The figures for 1989 are provisional.