Download Free Government Response To The Justice Committees Sixth Report Of Session 2012 13 Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Government Response To The Justice Committees Sixth Report Of Session 2012 13 and write the review.

The number of older prisoners is now very high and is likely to remain so - partly caused by the increase in convictions for historic sexual offences. The growth of the older prison population and the severity of the needs of that population, warrant a national strategy in order to provide for them effectively. Older and disabled prisoners should no longer be held in institutions which cannot meet their basic needs nor should they be released back into the community without adequate support. There are some excellent prison officers and charity workers who are providing essential social care but an ad hoc system means that too often older prisoners have to rely on the goodwill of officers and their fellow inmates to fulfill the most basic of care needs. The responsibility to adapt the prison environment so that it suits less able prisoners lies with a prison's senior management team and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS). NOMS should conduct a comprehensive analysis of prisons' physical compliance with disability discrimination and age equality laws. The Committee does not believe there is a need for the expansion of segregated older prisoner units or wings. However, NOMS should ensure all prisons have an older prisoner policy that provides age and ability specific regimes. Furthermore older prisoners who are released after a long period of incarceration must have a resettlement and care plan. At present older prisoners are frequently released to no fixed abode undermining all work that has been made towards resettlement
The Justice Committee held a pre-appoointment hearing with the preferred candidate, Mr Paul McDowell. This report contains the oral evidence from that meeting and the Committee approves his appointment. The report also contains correspondence between the Chair of the Committee and the Secretary of State, the job advertisement, the person specification used in the recruitment process, and Mr McDowell's curriculum vitae.
The chairmanship of the Office for Legal Complaints is one of the posts which are subject to (non-binding) pre-appointment scrutiny by select committees. Elizabeth France was recruited to the position on 10 October 2008, and the Justice Committee took oral evidence from her on 21 October.
The Government has struck a reasonable balance in the way it is planning to exercise its right to opt-out of pre-Lisbon Treaty EU policing and criminal justice measures, but the way it has engaged Parliament in the decision-making process has been badly handled and 'cavalier'. The Government left the Commons select committees far too little time to assess the reasons for their decisions on EU justice opt-ins, and did not provide the full impact assessment which was needed. The Committee agrees with the Government's plans to seek to opt back into seven of the sixteen measures, and not to opt into a number of others. The Committee also raises questions about the Government's intention not to opt back into two specific instruments, the Probation Measures Framework Decision and the Framework Decision on the settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction. The Committee also calls on the Government to provide an assessment of the effect of the extension of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union over the measures covered by the opt-out. The Committee also agrees with the Government's proposal to seek to rejoin decisions on data protection in policing and criminal justice, and on a data protection secretariat, but says that the arguments are more finely balanced in relation to the Framework Decision on settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction
The Government presented its Post-legislative Scrutiny of the Serious Crime Act 2007 Memorandum to the Home Affairs Committee and Justice Committee in November 2012. The parts of the Memorandum falling within the Justice Committee's remit were a) Serious Crime Prevention Orders and b) Part 2, in particular, offences of encouraging or assisting crime in terms of prosecution and interpretation of the sections by courts and the CPS. There is concern about the trenchant criticism that Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 received. In addition, Part 2 was the subject of appeals to the Court of Appeal. The report concurs with the academics who wrote that the sections are complex and difficult to understand for lawyers, let alone for defendants, jurors and other lay-people working in the criminal justice system. It raises some key concerns and questions about the purpose of post-legislative scrutiny. It is considered that where the substance of an Act or part of an Act is to create or revise criminal offences it is appropriate for questions of a purely legal or technical nature to be considered. The latest judgment in the case of Sadique may allow the legislation to settle into accepted use and interpretation. However, the Ministry should conduct a further and full post-legislative assessment of Part 2 in 2016. If, in the meantime, the number of appeals on Part 2 increases, the Ministry should consider bringing forward legislative proposals for revising, or even replacing, Part 2 to meet the purpose of the legislation in a less tortuous fashion
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) was set up in 1997, by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. The CCRC investigates alleged miscarriages of justice, post-conviction and post-appeal, and has the power to refer cases back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration. The Committee held a one-off evidence session on the work of the CCRC in January 2014, and then sought some views on the issues raised. The Committee subsequently decided to hold an inquiry on the CCRC, and launched it with a general call for evidence. The "real possibility" test, which requires that for a referral to be made there must be a real possibility that the conviction or sentence would not be upheld on appeal, was one of the most controversial aspects of the CCRC. The Committee found that criticisms broadly fell into one of three areas: that the test itself is wrong; that the test is being applied incorrectly by the CCRC; or that the Court of Appeal's approach to criminal appeals is overly restrictive. The Committee's considers each of these areas in turn. Critics of the test felt that it inherently prevents the CCRC from being truly independent of the Court of Appeal. The Committee concludes that any change would have to be in light of a change to the Court of Appeal's grounds for allowing appeals.
In this Report the Committee returns to follow up the Report which was published in January 2012 (ISBN 9780215040589) on the operation of the common-law doctrine of joint enterprise, which forms part of the criminal law relating to secondary liability. The types of cases considered are those in which P and D participate together in one crime and in the course of it P commits a second crime which D had foreseen he might commit: in such cases, under joint enterprise, D may also be charged and convicted of the second offence. The Committee considers in this report the impact of the guidance for prosecutors in joint enterprise cases which the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) produced in response to one of the 2012 recommendations, taking into account statistics on murder and manslaughter cases with two or more defendants in 2012 and 2013 which the CPS also produced. The Committee concludes that the level of concern about the operation of joint enterprise, especially in murder cases, is such that it is no longer acceptable for the main authorities in the criminal justice system to give such limited attention and priority to the recording and collation of information and reommends that the Ministry of Justice establish a system to enable production of regular statistics on joint enterprise prosecutions, convictions and appeals. This report sets out a range of other concerns and questions which continue to be raised about the application of the doctrine, including the scale of use of joint enterprise, the question as to whether joint enterprise is being used as a social policy tool, the high number of Black and mixed race young men who have been convicted of joint enterprise offences. The evidence heard in this second inquiry into the subject has increased disquiet at the functioning of the law on joint enterprise and the Committee is no longer of the view that it is satisfactory for a consultation to be held on the Law Commission's previous proposals on joint enterprise.
This is the Committee's first major inquiry on prisons planning and policies in this Parliament, and it has provided an opportunity to consider the impact of the Government's programme of reforms and efficiency savings across the prison estate. These policies have been implemented alongside the creation of working prisons and resettlement prisons, designed to improve the effectiveness of the prison estate in increasing employability and reducing re-offending, as well as the tightening of operational policies on earned privileges and temporary release in order to improve their public credibility. They have also come at a time when the total prison population has returned to very high levels. The Committee expresses concern that despite the Government's efforts to supply sufficient prison places to meet demand, the proportion of prisons that are overcrowded is growing, and the proportion of prisoners held in crowded conditions remains at almost a quarter, with consequent effects on the ability to maintain constructive regimes. The Committee welcomes the reduction which has taken place in the cost of a prison place, although the Committee notes that it remains high, and is unlikely to fall significantly while the pressures on estate capacity remain at current levels
Manorial rights are certain rights which were retained by lords of the manor in England and Wales when land became freehold in the early 20th century, and can include rights to mines and some minerals, sporting rights such as hunting, shooting and fishing, and rights to hold fairs and markets. In the past such rights were not required to be detailed on theregister of title, but they remained overriding - that is they bound the owner of the affected and even though they may not have known about the rights. Changes made through the Land Registration Act 2002 sought to increase the transparency and knowledge of such rights by requiring that they be registered and removing their overriding status. This Act specified a deadline - October 2013 - by which such rights should be registered to ensure they could not be lost.