1-20 of 36 results for subject:Injunctions
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.248 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.002 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Injunctions
- We searched for
- subject_t:Injunctions OR subject_ses:91670
Year
X
2005
Type
House
Session
Month
Department
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many times the powers under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 have been used to prevent an individual from contacting a spouse or partner in each year since the Act came into force; what standard of proof is...
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many times the powers under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 have been used to prevent an individual from contacting a spouse or partner in each year since the Act came into force; what standard of proof is...
Asked by
Steve Webb
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Fiona Mactaggart
(Labour)
Answering body
Home Office
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
31 October 2005
For answer on
2 November 2005
Answered on
17 November 2005
The available information from the Home Office Court Proceedings database on the number of restraining orders made under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 up to 2004 is contained in table one.The available information from the Department for Constitutional Affairs County Court Statistics Module Database on the estimated number of injunctions granted under section 3 of the Act, 1998 to 2005, is contained in table two. (The number is estimated because there is no specific reference to section three of the Act within the dataset.) It is not possible to identify those orders or injunctions that were intended to prevent contact with a partner or spouse, as information about the purpose of such orders and injunctions is not centrally collected. Both restraining orders made under section 5 of the Act and civil injunctions granted under section three are civil orders.Both orders are preventative rather than punitive and are intended to give protection to victims. In determining whether a restraining order is necessary, the criminal court will apply a civil standard of proof. If a civil court is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that harassment has taken place or is anticipated, then it may grant an injunction.
| Protection from Harassment Act 1997 | |
|---|---|
| Injunctions granted | |
| 1998 | 374 |
| 1999 | 390 |
| 2000 | 283 |
| 2001 | 433 |
| 2002 | 482 |
| 2003 | 761 |
| 2004 | 354 |
| 2005 (to September 2005) | 482 |
| Defendants given a restraining order, principal andnon-principal, 1997–2004 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Crown court | Magistrates court | All courts | |
| 1997 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 1998 | 38 | 822 | 860 |
| 1999 | 146 | 1,290 | 1,436 |
| 2000 | 59 | 1,559 | 1,618 |
| 2001 | 3 | 1,602 | 1,605 |
| 2002 | 127 | 1,807 | 1,934 |
| 2003 | 520 | 1,947 | 2,467 |
| 2004 | 602 | 2,204 | 2,806 |
| Source: RDS-NOMS |
Legislation
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Subjects
Evidence; Harassment; Injunctions; Married people
Date
17 November 2005
Reference
439 c1433-5W;439 c1437-9W; 24524
House
House of Commons
(2) on how many occasions powers under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 have been used to prevent a person from accessing their marital home; and if he will make a statement.
(2) on how many occasions powers under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 have been used to prevent a person from accessing their marital home; and if he will make a statement.
Asked by
Steve Webb
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Fiona Mactaggart
(Labour)
Answering body
Home Office
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
8 November 2005
For answer on
10 November 2005
Answered on
17 November 2005
The available information from the Home Office Court Proceedings database on the number of restraining orders made under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 up to 2004 is contained in table one.The available information from the Department for Constitutional Affairs County Court Statistics Module Database on the estimated number of injunctions granted under section 3 of the Act, 1998 to 2005, is contained in table two. (The number is estimated because there is no specific reference to section three of the Act within the dataset.) It is not possible to identify those orders or injunctions that were intended to prevent contact with a partner or spouse, as information about the purpose of such orders and injunctions is not centrally collected. Both restraining orders made under section 5 of the Act and civil injunctions granted under section three are civil orders.Both orders are preventative rather than punitive and are intended to give protection to victims. In determining whether a restraining order is necessary, the criminal court will apply a civil standard of proof. If a civil court is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that harassment has taken place or is anticipated, then it may grant an injunction.
| Protection from Harassment Act 1997 | |
|---|---|
| Injunctions granted | |
| 1998 | 374 |
| 1999 | 390 |
| 2000 | 283 |
| 2001 | 433 |
| 2002 | 482 |
| 2003 | 761 |
| 2004 | 354 |
| 2005 (to September 2005) | 482 |
| Defendants given a restraining order, principal andnon-principal, 1997–2004 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Crown court | Magistrates court | All courts | |
| 1997 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 1998 | 38 | 822 | 860 |
| 1999 | 146 | 1,290 | 1,436 |
| 2000 | 59 | 1,559 | 1,618 |
| 2001 | 3 | 1,602 | 1,605 |
| 2002 | 127 | 1,807 | 1,934 |
| 2003 | 520 | 1,947 | 2,467 |
| 2004 | 602 | 2,204 | 2,806 |
| Source: RDS-NOMS |
Legislation
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Subjects
Access; Housing; Harassment; Injunctions; Married people
Date
17 November 2005
Reference
28061; 439 c1433-5W;439 c1437-9W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the average total cost, including all staff, legal, court and other process costs, of securing (a) an anti-social behaviour order, (b) an injunction and (c) an eviction was in the latest period for which figures are available; and if...
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the average total cost, including all staff, legal, court and other process costs, of securing (a) an anti-social behaviour order, (b) an injunction and (c) an eviction was in the latest period for which figures are available; and if...
Asked by
Annette Brooke
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Hazel Blears
(Labour)
Answering body
Home Office
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
31 January 2005
For answer on
9 February 2005
Answered on
9 February 2005
Mrs. Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average total cost, including all staff, legal, court
and other process costs, of securing (a) an anti-social behaviour order, (b) an injunction and (c) an eviction
was in the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [213527]
Ms Blears: [holding answer 7 February 2005]: We do not hold data on the information requested. We hold data on the average
cost to the applicant authority of obtaining an antisocial behaviour order (ASBO). The Campbell Review, published in 2002, provides
the latest data on the cost of obtaining an ASBO. It quoted an average cost of £4,800 for an ASBO but this figure was based on a
small sample of orders in the early period of their introduction and was skewed by one abnormally complicated and unrepresentative
expensive application. Practitioners advise that applications usually cost much less than this and that costs decrease with
experience of using the orders. New research, due to be published shortly, shows that costs have reduced significantly since the
Campbell Review.
Injunctions are civil orders taken out by landlords or local authorities. We do not hold information on the average cost of an
injunction or eviction.
Subjects
Costs; Legal costs; Evictions; Injunctions; Anti-social behaviour orders
Date
9 February 2005
Reference
430 c1523-4W; 213527
House
House of Commons
1st supplementary on same.
1st supplementary on same.
Asked by
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
(Conservative)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
12 January 2005
Legislation
Hunting Act 2004; Parliament Act 1949
Subjects
Injunctions; Countryside Alliance
Date
12 January 2005
Reference
668 c254-5
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Answered by
Lord Whitty
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Legislation
Hunting Act 2004; Parliament Act 1949
Subjects
Injunctions; Countryside Alliance
Date
12 January 2005
Reference
668 c254-5
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Answered by
Lord Whitty
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
(Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Why the Attorney-General has indicated that they will not oppose injunctions to delay the ban on hunting with dogs coming into force on its due date. - Inc ref to 11 January 2005, CH 429 c165-72.
Legislation
Hunting Act 2004; Parliament Act 1949
Subjects
Injunctions; Countryside Alliance
Date
12 January 2005
Reference
668 c254-5
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Why the Attorney-General has indicated that they will not oppose injunctions to delay the ban on hunting with dogs coming into force on its due date. - Inc ref to 11 January 2005, CH 429 c165-72.
Why the Attorney-General has indicated that they will not oppose injunctions to delay the ban on hunting with dogs coming into force on its due date. - Inc ref to 11 January 2005, CH 429 c165-72.
Asked by
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Whitty
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
Procedure
Topical questions (HL)
For answer on
12 January 2005
Answered on
12 January 2005
Legislation
Hunting Act 2004; Parliament Act 1949
Subjects
Injunctions; Countryside Alliance
Date
12 January 2005
Reference
668 c254-5
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Lead member
Gerald Kaufman
Answering member
Alun Michael
Department
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Type
Urgent questions
Legislation
Hunting Act 2004
Subjects
Courts; Human rights; Judgements; Injunctions
Date
11 January 2005
Reference
429 c165-7
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Statement on court injunctions against the commencement of the Hunting Act 2004. 1st supplementary on same.
Statement on court injunctions against the commencement of the Hunting Act 2004. 1st supplementary on same.
Member
Gerald Kaufman
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Legislation
Hunting Act 2004
Subjects
Courts; Human rights; Judgements; Injunctions
Date
11 January 2005
Reference
429 c165-7
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Member
Alun Michael
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Legislation
Hunting Act 2004
Subjects
Courts; Human rights; Judgements; Injunctions
Date
11 January 2005
Reference
429 c165-7
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Member
Alun Michael
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Legislation
Hunting Act 2004
Subjects
Courts; Human rights; Judgements; Injunctions
Date
11 January 2005
Reference
429 c169-70
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Member
Alun Michael
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Legislation
Hunting Act 2004
Subjects
Courts; Human rights; Judgements; Injunctions
Date
11 January 2005
Reference
429 c169
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Member
Alun Michael
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Legislation
Hunting Act 2004
Subjects
Courts; Human rights; Judgements; Injunctions
Date
11 January 2005
Reference
429 c169
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Supplementary on the Hunting Act 2004.
Supplementary on the Hunting Act 2004.
Member
Viscount Hailsham
(Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Legislation
Hunting Act 2004
Subjects
Courts; Human rights; Judgements; Injunctions
Date
11 January 2005
Reference
429 c169
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Supplementary on the Hunting Act 2004.
Supplementary on the Hunting Act 2004.
Member
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Legislation
Hunting Act 2004
Subjects
Courts; Human rights; Judgements; Injunctions
Date
11 January 2005
Reference
429 c169
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Supplementary on the Hunting Act 2004.
Supplementary on the Hunting Act 2004.
Member
Lembit Opik
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Legislation
Hunting Act 2004
Subjects
Courts; Human rights; Judgements; Injunctions
Date
11 January 2005
Reference
429 c169-70
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Member
Alun Michael
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Legislation
Hunting Act 2004
Subjects
Courts; Human rights; Judgements; Injunctions
Date
11 January 2005
Reference
429 c167
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Member
Alun Michael
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Legislation
Hunting Act 2004
Subjects
Courts; Human rights; Judgements; Injunctions
Date
11 January 2005
Reference
429 c168
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Member
Alun Michael
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Legislation
Hunting Act 2004
Subjects
Courts; Human rights; Judgements; Injunctions
Date
11 January 2005
Reference
429 c170
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Supplementary on the Hunting Act 2004.
Supplementary on the Hunting Act 2004.
Member
Paddy Tipping
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Legislation
Hunting Act 2004
Subjects
Courts; Human rights; Judgements; Injunctions
Date
11 January 2005
Reference
429 c168
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons