Parliamentary Search

Written question asked by Cheryl Gillan (Conservative) on Tuesday, 2 March 2004, in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Monday, 8 March 2004. It was answered by Chris Leslie (Labour) on Monday, 8 March 2004 on behalf of the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

Dept for Constitutional Affairs

Question
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, what the total number of applications alleging a breach of a section 42 of the Family Law Act 1996 non-molestation injunction was, broken down by (a) whether or not the breach was proved and (b) in the event the breach was proved whether there was (i) an immediate prison sentence, (ii) a suspended prison sentence, (iii) a fine and (iv) another noncustodial disposal in (A) 2001, (B) 2002 and (C) 2003; how many civil non-harassment injunction orders were made under section 3(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in (a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003, broken down by sex of the respondent; how many orders for the payment of damages there were under section 3(2) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in (a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003, broken down by sex of the respondent; and what extent of overlap with orders for section 3 non-harassment injunctions there was; how many applications alleging a breach of a section 3(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 non-harassment injunction there were in (a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003, broken down by (i) sex of the respondent/defendant, (ii) whether the (A) civil contempt of court procedure by section 3(3)-(5) and (B) criminal procedure by section 3(6)-(7) was used and (iii) whether the breach was proved. - The information requested is not held centrally and disproportionate cost.
Answer

Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) what the total number of applications alleging a breach of a section 42 of the Family Law Act 1996 non-molestation injunction was, broken down by (a) whether or not the breach was proved and (b) in the event the breach was proved whether there was (i) an immediate prison sentence, (ii) a suspended prison sentence, (iii) a fine and (iv) another noncustodial disposal in (A) 2001, (B) 2002 and (C) 2003; [159397] (2) how many civil non-harassment injunction orders were made under section 3(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in (a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003, broken down by sex of the respondent; [159401] (3) how many orders for the payment of damages there were under section 3(2) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in (a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003, broken down by sex of the respondent; and what extent of overlap with orders for section 3 non- harassment injunctions there was; [159402] (4) how many applications alleging a breach of a section 3(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 non-harassment injunction there were in (a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003, broken down by (i) sex of the respondent/defendant, (ii) whether the (A) civil contempt of court procedure by section 3(3)-(5) and (B) criminal procedure by section 3(6)-(7) was used and (iii) whether the breach was proved. [159403] Mr. Leslie: The information requested is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Secondary information

Type
Written question
Reference
418 c1365-6W;418 c1367-8W; 159397;159401;159402;159403
Session
2003-04
Subjects
Harassment Injunctions
Link
View this Written question on www.publications.parliament.uk