§ Mr. GarnierTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the last five years for which figures are available, of those defendants who pleaded not guilty at(a) the Crown Court and (b) the magistrates court, how many were acquitted and how many convicted. [91396]
§ Mr. BoatengThe table shows, in respect of cases handled by the Crown Prosecution Service, the outcome of contested hearings following a plea of not guilty in the Crown Court and in magistrates courts for each of the last five years. The table also shows the number of defendants convicted and acquitted, and expresses these as a proportion of all contested hearings.
400W
Crown Court—contested hearings Year ending March Convictions after trial Acquittals 1995 11,511 8,462 1996 12,358 8,399 1997 11,982 8,012 1998 13,413 9,012 1999 11,561 8,668
Magistrates courts—contested hearings Year ending March Convictions after trial Dismissals 1995 72,307 20,997 1996 61,417 18,637 1997 53,393 17,769 1998 53,702 18,407 1999 47,889 17,181
§ Mr. GarnierTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has commissioned into the respective(a) rates of conviction, (b) levels of sentencing upon conviction following a plea of not guilty between (i) stipendiary and (ii) lay magistrates and (c) the levels of sentencing upon conviction following a plea of not guilty of (i) judges in the Crown Court, (ii) stipendiary and (iii) lay magistrates; and if he will publish it. [91397]
§ Mr. BoatengResearch is being commissioned jointly by the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department to assess the relative costs, effectiveness and other benefits/disadvantages of stipendiary and lay magistrates. This will look, inter alia, at conviction rates and sentencing patterns, although it is unlikely that it will seek to distinguish between sentencing in contested and guilty plea cases. Some information about differences between sentencing by lay and stipendiary magistrates is to be found in "Sentencing Practice: an examination of decisions in magistrates courts and the Crown Court in the mid-1990's" by Flood-Page and Mackie (1998, Home Office Research Study No. 180), a copy of which is in the Library.
Statistical data are available on the type of sentence, including length of custody, received by defendants in the Crown Court for various offence groups by type of plea. These are to be found in Table 7E of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1997" (Home Office, 1998) a copy of which is in the Library. Data by plea are not yet available from magistrates courts.
§ Mr. GarnierTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the last five years for which figures are available, how many defendants have elected trial by(a) jury and (b) magistrates; and what proportion of defendants charged with either way offences (a) and (b) represent. [91395]
§ Mr. BoatengThe table shows, in respect of proceedings handled by the Crown Prosecution Service, the number of defendants charged with either way offences who elected trial by jury. These figures are also expressed as a percentage of all either way cases dealt with at the Crown Court.
The table also shows the number of defendants charged with either way offences who consented to summary trial, and whose case proceeded to a contested hearing in magistrates courts. However, the Crown Prosecution Service maintains no separate record of either way proceedings dealt with in magistrates' courts by way of a guilty plea.
401W
Crown Court Year ending March Either way-defendant elections As percentage of either way cases 1995 26,612 34.2 1996 24,768 33.1 1997 21,472 30.5 1998 21,653 27.9 1999 18,391 29.4
Magistrates Courts Year ending March Either way cases contested 1995 33,273 1996 27,057 1997 24,422 1998 25,693 1999 24,004
§ Mr. GarnierTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in respect of offences triable either way, what was, for the last five years for which figures are available, the average period between the plea of not guilty and the trial in(a) the Crown Court and (b) the magistrates courts [91398]
§ Mr. VazI have been asked to reply.
Information on the time taken to deal with proceedings in the Crown Court and the magistrates court is not collected in a way which allows offences triable either way to be separately identified.
The Court Service collects data on the average time between committal and arraignment or start of trial in the Crown Court. Table A shows the average time in the Crown Court from committal to start of trial for defendants pleading not guilty from 1994 to 1998. These data include both either way and indictable only cases.
The Lord Chancellor's Department Time Intervals Survey collects data on the duration of criminal cases completed in magistrates courts in sample weeks in February, June and October. The interval between a plea of not guilty and the trial is not separately identified. Table B gives the average number of days from first appearance or mode of trial decision to verdict for defendants pleading not guilty in indictable and triable either way cases in magistrates courts from 1994 to 1998.
Table A: Crown Court: England and Wales: Average time from committal to start of trial for defendants pleading not guilty, 1994 to 1998 Year Average number of weeks from committal to start of trial 1994 21.4 1995 21.3 1996 19.1 1997 18.2 1998 18.4 Note:
Excludes bench warrants issued, no plea recorded, indictment to lie on file and found unfit to plead
Source:
Judicial Statistics
402W
Table B: Magistrates courts: England and Wales: Average time from first appearance or mode of trial decision to verdict for defendants pleading not guilty in indictable and triable either way cases, 1994 to 1998 Year Average number of days from first appearance or mode of trial decision to verdict 1994 68 1995 73 1996 73 1997 73 1998 72 Notes:
1. The date of first appearance is recorded for defendants in indictable only cases, whereas the date on mode of trial decision is recorded for defendants in triable either way cases.
2. The date of verdict includes finding of guilt, information dismissed and committed for trial, among other decisions.
3. Cases where offence to charge was over 10 years, or where charge to first listing or first listing to completion was over 1 year, are excluded from the analysis.
Source:
Lord Chancellor's Department Time Intervals Survey