1-20 of 32 results for dept:"Solicitor General"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.261 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.005 seconds
- Search query
- dept:"Solicitor General"
- We searched for
- department_t:"Solicitor General" OR department_t:SG OR department_t:Solicitor-General OR department_ses:98099 OR answeringDept_ses:98099
Member
X
Gordon Prentice
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Prentice, Gordon (32)
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were convicted of tax evasion in each year since 2005; and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were convicted of tax evasion in each year since 2005; and if he will make a statement.
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answered by
Vera Baird
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
15 December 2009
For answer on
5 January 2010
Answered on
5 January 2010
I have been asked to reply.The information requested is contained in the following table. This information has only been collected centrally since 2006-07 and figures for earlier years could be determined only at a disproportionate cost. While the number of cases prosecuted remained fairly even over the three years indicated, the number of individuals convicted rose in 2007-08 due to a number of long running complex prosecutions resulting in successful outcomes in that year. Many were multi-handed cases in which most or all defendants were convicted.
| Number of individuals convicted in England and Walesl | |
| 2006-07 | 258 |
| 2007-08 | 328 |
| 2008-09 | 226 |
| ¹ Tax evasion has been defined as offences relating to VAT (non-complex and complex/MTIC), tax credits (non-complex and complex/organised) and direct tax (non-complex/Grabiner and complex). |
Subjects
Convictions; Tax evasion
Date
5 January 2010
Reference
503 c176W; 308377
House
House of Commons
To ask the Solicitor General, how many and what percentage of letters sent by the Law Officers' Departments were given to (a) the Royal Mail and (b) another postal services provider for delivery in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement.
To ask the Solicitor General, how many and what percentage of letters sent by the Law Officers' Departments were given to (a) the Royal Mail and (b) another postal services provider for delivery in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement.
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Tabled
Tabled on
25 February 2009
For answer on
27 February 2009
Date
25 February 2009
Reference
259982
House
House of Commons
To ask the Solicitor General, how many people were (a) prosecuted for and (b) convicted of religious hate crimes where the victim was (i) a convert from Islam to Christianity and (ii) a convert from Christianity to Islam in each year since 2000.
To ask the Solicitor General, how many people were (a) prosecuted for and (b) convicted of religious hate crimes where the victim was (i) a convert from Islam to Christianity and (ii) a convert from Christianity to Islam in each year since 2000.
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Tabled
Tabled on
30 April 2008
For answer on
6 May 2008
Date
30 April 2008
Reference
203705
House
House of Commons
To ask the Solicitor-General whether he would proceed with the appointment of named counsel to advise him on whether prosecutions under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 should proceed if the approval of the Leader of the Opposition is not forthcoming.
To ask the Solicitor-General whether he would proceed with the appointment of named counsel to advise him on whether prosecutions under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 should proceed if the approval of the Leader of the Opposition is not forthcoming.
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answered by
Mike O'Brien
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
23 April 2007
For answer on
26 April 2007
Answered on
26 April 2007
The Attorney-General has previously indicated the arrangements which his Office will put in place if he is consulted by the Crown Prosecution Service in the current ““honours? case. These will ensure objectivity, independence and transparency through the appointment of independent senior counsel to consider the CPS conclusions and advise. The Attorney has undertaken to consult Opposition spokesmen in an attempt to secure prior agreement on the choice of counsel. A decision on who to instruct will be taken then. If, following this process, a decision is taken not to prosecute, counsel's advice relating to that decision will be made public.The Attorney-General has made it clear that he will exercise his role independently of Government, in accordance with the law and the evidence. We are clear that our first duty as Law Officers is to the law, not to party politics.
Subjects
Honours; Prosecutions
Date
26 April 2007
Reference
134088; 459 c1245-6W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Solicitor General, on which occasions his legal advice to the Government was made public (a) in summary and (b) in total in each year since 1982.
To ask the Solicitor General, on which occasions his legal advice to the Government was made public (a) in summary and (b) in total in each year since 1982.
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Tabled
Tabled on
19 March 2007
For answer on
21 March 2007
Date
19 March 2007
Reference
129066
House
House of Commons
But will he act on that advice and will the Attorney-General retain the right of veto on whether or not to advance a prosecution? Is it not as plain as a pikestaff that there is a clear and obvious conflict of interest here and that the Attorney-General should remove himself entirely from the process?
But will he act on that advice and will the Attorney-General retain the right of veto on whether or not to advance a prosecution? Is it not as plain as a pikestaff that there is a clear and obvious conflict of interest here and that the Attorney-General should remove himself entirely from the process?
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
11 January 2007
It is important to stress that these issues are wholly hypothetical at this stage. There is no file sent to the Crown Prosecution Service; there is no reference by the CPS to the Attorney-General; no independent advice has been sought and no one—including my hon. Friend—knows whether it will happen. It is the case that a police investigation is still under way: neither I nor the Attorney-General know whether it will lead to any recommendation for anyone to be prosecuted. The Attorney-General has made his position clear and it would not be right for him to stand aside from any involvement in the case. Indeed, as the Director of Public Prosecutions has said, the Attorney-General is"““entitled to be consulted about a case, and it is normal practice for him to be consulted in serious and complex cases.””"
And as Lord Morris of Aberavon, a former Attorney-General, has said of the Attorney-General:"““At the end of the day, he and he alone is answerable to Parliament and there should be no question of this or any other Attorney-General stepping aside.””"
Subjects
Criminal investigation; Honours; Prosecutions
Date
11 January 2007
Reference
455 c430-1
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
How he will evaluate the independent advice offered to him on whether prosecutions should be initiated under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 or the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
How he will evaluate the independent advice offered to him on whether prosecutions should be initiated under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 or the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answered by
Mike O'Brien
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
Tabled on
8 January 2007
For answer on
11 January 2007
Answered on
11 January 2007
If the Crown Prosecution Service consults him on such a prosecution, the Attorney-General has said that he will appoint an independent senior counsel to review all the relevant material and advise him on any prosecution. That is not unusual, as the Attorney-General often appoints senior counsel to advise on particular cases, and he will evaluate advice in the normal way.
Subjects
Criminal investigation; Honours; Prosecutions
Date
11 January 2007
Reference
455 c430; 114141
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
To ask the Solicitor-General how many prosecutions have been brought for incitement to murder in each year since 1995; and how many resulted in a conviction.
To ask the Solicitor-General how many prosecutions have been brought for incitement to murder in each year since 1995; and how many resulted in a conviction.
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answered by
Mike O'Brien
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
6 February 2006
For answer on
8 February 2006
Answered on
13 February 2006
The following table shows (a) the number of defendants who had proceedings commenced against them for the offence of soliciting to commit murder contrary to section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, or conspiracy to commit that offence, and (b) the number found guilty, in each year, of that specific offence, or conspiracy to commit that offence, for which figures are available.Some defendants proceeded against for soliciting to commit murder, or conspiracy to commit that offence, will have pleaded guilty or will have been found guilty of other offences. The following conviction figures do not include those other offences, and therefore understate the number of defendants who were convicted of an offence in each year.
| Defendants prosecuted at magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for conspiring or soliciting to commit murder, 1994 to 2004, England and Wales Number(10) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Prosecuted | Guilty | |
| 1994 | 68 | 18 |
| 1995 | 53 | 12 |
| 1996 | 69 | 7 |
| 1997 | 50 | 15 |
| 1998 | 58 | 14 |
| 1999 | 97 | 13 |
| 2000 | 75 | 18 |
| 2001 | 71 | 7 |
| 2002 | 82 | 13 |
| 2003 | 63 | 29 |
| 2004 | 59 | 10 |
| (10) Data are on the principal offence basis. | ||
| (11) Offences under section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and conspiracy to commit this offence under section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. |
Subjects
Convictions; Incitement; Homicide; Prosecutions
Date
13 February 2006
Reference
50132; 442 c1536-7W;442 c1536-7W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Solicitor-General when the Attorney-General next plans to address military officers who have been identified as suitable for promotion to the highest levels; and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Solicitor-General when the Attorney-General next plans to address military officers who have been identified as suitable for promotion to the highest levels; and if he will make a statement.
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answered by
Mike O'Brien
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
6 February 2006
For answer on
8 February 2006
Answered on
13 February 2006
On 30 January the Attorney-General addressed military officers, attending the Higher Command and Staff Course organised by the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom at the Joint Services Command and Staff College, on the ““International Legal Framework””.There are no immediate plans for the Attorney-General further to address military officers who have been identified as suitable for promotion to the highest level but he will consider doing so where a suitable opportunity arises.
Subjects
Armed forces; Career development; Officers
Date
13 February 2006
Reference
50245; 442 c1537W;442 c1537W
House
House of Commons
I realise that this is a difficult problem, perhaps even an intractable one. However, I am fed up with phishing. I get bogus e-mails from Barclays bank every day—and I do not even bank with Barclays. Is it technically possible to track down the people who post such information on the web?
I realise that this is a difficult problem, perhaps even an intractable one. However, I am fed up with phishing. I get bogus e-mails from Barclays bank every day—and I do not even bank with Barclays. Is it technically possible to track down the people who post such information on the web?
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
9 February 2006
The answer is sometimes. Research by MessageLabs shows that 18 million phishing e-mails were detected in the course of one year, and we suspect that the numbers have subsequently increased. However, the numbers of phishing e-mails reported by people to the authorities—I am sure that my hon. Friend is one who does that regularly—is actually quite low. So we have the problem that although we are detecting a lot of phishing e-mails and getting anecdotal reports of them, not many people are reporting them to the police and the prosecuting authorities. The national hi-tech crimes unit issued advice on how to avoid such attacks in October 2003, and we are working with the British Bankers Association to try to deal with particular aspects of banking phishing expeditions. It is very difficult to catch some of the people involved, particularly when they are abroad, but the international agreements that we are entering into represent the start of a process of dealing internationally with the internet—which is, after all, an international phenomenon.
Subjects
Banks; Fraud; Financial services; Internet; Email; Prosecutions; Unsolicited goods and services
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1005-6
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
How many prosecutions the Crown Prosecution Service has brought since January 2005 against people posting (a) websites purporting to represent UK banks on the internet and (b) sending bogus e-mails from law firms as a way of getting personal and financial details.
How many prosecutions the Crown Prosecution Service has brought since January 2005 against people posting (a) websites purporting to represent UK banks on the internet and (b) sending bogus e-mails from law firms as a way of getting personal and financial details.
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answered by
Mike O'Brien
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
Tabled on
6 February 2006
For answer on
9 February 2006
Answered on
9 February 2006
I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend the statistics in the precise form that he has requested, because CPS records identify offences in relation to sections of our legislation rather than the means by which the offence was perpetrated. These internet and e-mail offences could be prosecuted under a range of different laws. When the criminal is in the United Kingdom, it would obviously be possible to secure a prosecution. However, when the criminal generates the material abroad, the question of jurisdiction is more problematic.
Subjects
Banks; Fraud; Financial services; Internet; Email; Prosecutions; Unsolicited goods and services
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1005; 49931
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
To ask the Solicitor-General whether the Government have asked the House of Lords to award costs in respect of the legal action from the Countryside Alliance in relation to the Parliament Act 1949; and how much was awarded.
To ask the Solicitor-General whether the Government have asked the House of Lords to award costs in respect of the legal action from the Countryside Alliance in relation to the Parliament Act 1949; and how much was awarded.
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answered by
Mike O'Brien
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
7 November 2005
For answer on
9 November 2005
Answered on
14 November 2005
This matter is currently before the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. By resolution of the House, this question is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it relates to a case in which proceedings are active in a United Kingdom court. I am not at liberty to answer any questions on this issue until the Judicial Committee has recorded an Order in the House of Lords' Minutes. My understanding is that this will not be until 18 November 2005 at the earliest. My hon. Friend will then be able to get a better view of the issue he raises.
Legislation
Hunting Act 2004; Parliament Act 1949
Subjects
Civil proceedings; House of Lords; Legal costs; Judgements; Countryside Alliance
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
26894; 439 c875W;439 c875W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Solicitor General, pursuant to her Oral Answer of 24th March, in what circumstances it would be appropriate to bring to trial a serving soldier in the civilian courts.
To ask the Solicitor General, pursuant to her Oral Answer of 24th March, in what circumstances it would be appropriate to bring to trial a serving soldier in the civilian courts.
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answered by
Baroness Harman
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
28 March 2005
For answer on
7 April 2005
Answered on
7 April 2005
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Solicitor-General pursuant to her oral answer of 24 March, in what circumstances it would be
appropriate to bring to trial a serving soldier in the civilian courts. [224462]
The Solicitor-General: The vast majority of offences committed by Army personnel are dealt with by courts martial, following
investigation by the military police. In some cases both in the UK and abroad there is concurrent jurisdiction. Often, the most
appropriate jurisdiction is for the case to proceed in the military system. When considering the appropriate jurisdiction for trial
the various considerations will be taken into account such as where the offence was allegedly committed in operational
circumstances; whether there are other charges which can only be preferred under military law; witness availability; whether the
alleged victim is military or civilian; whether the soldiers committed offences with civilians who are not subject to military law.
This is not an exhaustive nor cumulative list but an example of the type of considerations that will apply in deciding when it would
be appropriate to bring to trial a serving soldier in the civilian courts.
Subjects
Criminal proceedings; Armed forces
Date
7 April 2005
Reference
432 c1577-8W;432 c1573-4W; 224462
House
House of Commons
To ask the Solicitor General, if the Attorney General will review the application of the double jeopardy rule as it relates to soldiers going to trial in the civilian courts having lost the opportunity of a court martial on the grounds that the commanding officer found there was no case...
To ask the Solicitor General, if the Attorney General will review the application of the double jeopardy rule as it relates to soldiers going to trial in the civilian courts having lost the opportunity of a court martial on the grounds that the commanding officer found there was no case...
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answered by
Baroness Harman
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
28 March 2005
For answer on
7 April 2005
Answered on
7 April 2005
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Solicitor-General if the Attorney-General will review the application of the double jeopardy rule as
it relates to soldiers going to trial in the civilian courts having lost the opportunity of a court martial on the grounds that the
commanding officer found there was no case to answer. [224461]
The Solicitor-General: The double jeopardy rule applies to soldiers in the same way as it does to defendants in the civilian courts.
The Attorney-General will not review the application of the double jeopardy rule as it relates to soldiers going to trial in the
civilian courts.
For the doctrine of autrefois convict/acquit to apply the defendant must stand for a second time "in jeopardy". "Jeopardy" means a
real risk or danger of punishment following conviction. In cases transferred to the civilian system from the military the doctrine
of autrefois convict/acquit will apply as in any other case.
Subjects
Criminal proceedings; Armed forces
Date
7 April 2005
Reference
432 c1577W;432 c1573W; 224461
House
House of Commons
1st supplementary on whether the commanding officer is asked to give evidence in a civilian court.
1st supplementary on whether the commanding officer is asked to give evidence in a civilian court.
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
24 March 2005
Subjects
Criminal proceedings; Administration of justice; Armed forces; Evidence
Date
24 March 2005
Reference
432 c998
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
To ask the Solicitor General, how many times since 2001 the Attorney General has decided to bring cases involving military personnel through the civilian courts.
To ask the Solicitor General, how many times since 2001 the Attorney General has decided to bring cases involving military personnel through the civilian courts.
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answered by
Baroness Harman
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
Tabled on
21 March 2005
For answer on
24 March 2005
Answered on
24 March 2005
Subjects
Criminal proceedings; Administration of justice; Armed forces; Evidence
Date
24 March 2005
Reference
432 c998; 223617
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
To ask the Solicitor General, if the Attorney-General will re-assess his role in the operation and application of the criminal justice system as it relates to the military. (Further information on 08.03.2005 at 431 c1638W)
To ask the Solicitor General, if the Attorney-General will re-assess his role in the operation and application of the criminal justice system as it relates to the military. (Further information on 08.03.2005 at 431 c1638W)
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answered by
Baroness Harman
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
23 February 2005
For answer on
8 March 2005
Answered on
8 March 2005
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Solicitor-General if the Attorney-General will re-assess his role in the operation and application
of the criminal justice system as it relates to the military. [218423]
The Solicitor-General: In the Attorney-General's Statement (14 June 2004, Official Report, Lords, columns WS22-24) he set out
the role of the military prosecuting authorities, which act independently of the military chain of command. They are subject to the
general superintendence of the Attorney-General.
The court martial system was established under the Army Act 1955 and is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence.
The Attorney's role relates to prosecutions brought by the military service prosecuting authorities. The Attorney-General will not
be re- assessing his role in this regard.
Subjects
Criminal proceedings; Armed forces; Crown Prosecution Service; Prosecutions
Date
8 March 2005
Reference
431 c1638W;431 c1633W; 218423
House
House of Commons
To ask the Solicitor General, whether the Attorney General considered initiating a prosecution against the producers of the play Behzti on the grounds that it was allegedly offensive to Sikhs; and if she will make a statement.
To ask the Solicitor General, whether the Attorney General considered initiating a prosecution against the producers of the play Behzti on the grounds that it was allegedly offensive to Sikhs; and if she will make a statement.
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answered by
Baroness Harman
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
7 February 2005
For answer on
22 February 2005
Answered on
22 February 2005
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Solicitor-General whether the Attorney-General considered initiating a prosecution against the
producers of the play "Behzti" on the grounds that it was allegedly offensive to Sikhs; and if she will make a statement. [215831]
The Solicitor-General: Prosecutions for the offences of incitement to racial hatred, under Part III of the Public Order Act 1986,
are brought by the Crown Prosecution Service, who seek the consent of the Attorney-General to prosecute.
The Crown Prosecution Service has not sought the consent of the Attorney-General to prosecute any offence in relation to the play
"Behzti".
Subjects
Prosecutions; Racial violence; Racially aggravated offences; Religion; Sikhs
Date
22 February 2005
Reference
215831; 431 c516W;431 c512W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Solicitor General, what supervisory responsibilities the Attorney General has for the law as it relates to Service personnel.
To ask the Solicitor General, what supervisory responsibilities the Attorney General has for the law as it relates to Service personnel.
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answered by
Baroness Harman
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
Tabled on
25 October 2004
For answer on
28 October 2004
Answered on
28 October 2004
Subjects
Armed forces; Attorney General; Jurisdiction; Law
Date
28 October 2004
Reference
425 c1577-8; 194087
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
1st supplementary on the same.
1st supplementary on the same.
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Answering body
Solicitor General
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
28 October 2004
Subjects
Armed forces; Attorney General; Jurisdiction; Law
Date
28 October 2004
Reference
425 c1577-8
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons