1-5 of 5 results for subject:Misconduct
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.272 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.004 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Misconduct
- We searched for
- subject_t:Misconduct OR subject_t:Malpractice OR subject_t:"Professional misconduct" OR subject_ses:92051
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
Publisher
To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Ministerial Correction of 24 June 2016 to Question 40180, on Gurpal Virdi, how many statements of fact by the complainant were contradicted by (a) Tom Makins and (b) police or court records; and which police or court records confirmed the age of...
To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Ministerial Correction of 24 June 2016 to Question 40180, on Gurpal Virdi, how many statements of fact by the complainant were contradicted by (a) Tom Makins and (b) police or court records; and which police or court records confirmed the age of...
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not consider it possible to answer questions (a) and (b) with a number because of the degree of interpretation required to determine what may amount to a “contradiction” and what may be described materially as a “statement of fact”.
There are no contemporaneous documents from 1986. The memorandum of conviction, which is held in the form of a certified extract created some years later, contains the date of birth. The microfiche records, which are dated after 1986, also contain the date of birth.
To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Ministerial Correction of 24 June 2016 to Question 40180, on Gurpal Virdi, (a) when the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) became aware that the Metropolitan Police had documentary evidence of the age of the complainant arrested on 7 November 1986 by PC Markwick...
To ask the Attorney General, pursuant to the Ministerial Correction of 24 June 2016 to Question 40180, on Gurpal Virdi, (a) when the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) became aware that the Metropolitan Police had documentary evidence of the age of the complainant arrested on 7 November 1986 by PC Markwick...
(a) The prosecution case was that Gurpal Virdi was the arresting officer. When the file was received from the police in November 2013, before charge, it contained a document which stated the date of birth of the complainant.
(b) DC Markwick is named on the extract of the court’s memorandum of conviction dated 24 June 1987 in the section “name of informant or complainant”. The CPS did not request a statement from Mr Markwick. The prosecution case was that Gurpal Virdi was the arresting officer.
To ask the Attorney General, how and why the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) joined the Metropolitan Police in announcing that retired police sergeant Gurpal Virdi was charged with misconduct in public office and with indecent assault on a person under 16 years; what publicity the CPS recorded as resulting at...
To ask the Attorney General, how and why the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) joined the Metropolitan Police in announcing that retired police sergeant Gurpal Virdi was charged with misconduct in public office and with indecent assault on a person under 16 years; what publicity the CPS recorded as resulting at...
A press release was issued by the Metropolitan Police Service which stated that the complainant was under 16. The CPS was not a party to this release and did not issue any other release. The CPS does not retain records of publicity resulting at the time.
When the case was reviewed in 2014 for charging, the complainant and the witness clearly stated that the complainant had been 15 when the incident took place in 1986. In addition Mr Virdi also said in interview that the complainant had been 15 at the time of the incident. The police summary stated that the complainant was 15. However the complainant’s date of birth and the date of his arrest were known and this mistake should not have been made.
The CPS was supplied with the memorandum of conviction referred to on 17 September 2014.The indictment was formally amended thereafter.
No steps were taken to publicise the fact that the charge was later amended in open court to remove the assertion that the complainant was under 16.
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what sentences have been imposed on people found guilty of committing an offence of (a) misconduct in public office and (b) conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office since 2005.
[154294]
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what sentences have been imposed on people found guilty of committing an offence of (a) misconduct in public office and (b) conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office since 2005.
[154294]
A breakdown of those found guilty and sentenced, with sentence breakdown by disposal, for offences of “misconduct in public life by act or omission” in England and Wales for 2005-12 can be viewed in the table.
Misconduct in public office is unacceptable and this Government is committed to ensuring that all those guilty of this offence are brought to justice.
| Offenders
found guilty and sentenced at all courts for offences of 'misconduct in
public office by act or omission'1,2, England
and Wales,
2005-123,4 | ||||||||
| 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 20085 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | |
| Found
guilty | 4 | 28 | 20 | 13 | 18 | 35 | 27 | 52 |
| Sentenced | 4 | 28 | 20 | 13 | 18 | 35 | 27 | 52 |
| Of
which: | ||||||||
| Immediate
custody | 2 | 18 | 10 | 11 | 14 | 30 | 25 | 35 |
| Suspended
sentence | — | 5 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 2 | — | 16 |
| Community
sentence | — | 5 | 2 | — | 1 | 2 | 1 | — |
| Fine | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1 |
| Conditional
discharge | 2 | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | — | — |
| Absolute
discharge | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1 | — |
| 1
An offence under Common Law In England and
Wales. 2 All attempts to commit offences, conspiracies to commit offences, charges of participation in offences as accessories after the fact and charges of participation in offences by impeding the apprehension or prosecution of the offender should be classified under the heading of the offence itself, except in certain cases where separate headings are given in the list. 3 The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. 4 Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. 5 Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July and August 2008. Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services—Ministry of Justice |
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will assess the effectiveness of procedures in place for the investigation of alleged misconduct by Essex Probation; what recent representations he has received on this matter; and if he will make a statement.
[118622]
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will assess the effectiveness of procedures in place for the investigation of alleged misconduct by Essex Probation; what recent representations he has received on this matter; and if he will make a statement.
[118622]
All probation trusts are required to have in place a scheme for considering and responding to complaints. Trusts are also required to provide inquirers with information about the scheme, which must include arrangements for appeal against the initial decision.
If the complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaints process, there is a further avenue of appeal to the prisons and probation ombudsman, where the complaint is made by or on behalf of an offender;
in all cases, the complainant can ask the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to investigate the trust's handling of the complaint.