Details of contempt of court hearings are not always held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the public. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and any warrant retained on file. Those not relating to a specific case will be recorded on daily lists and any warrants stored along with other orders. Local practices vary as to how contempts of court are recorded and stored.

HMCTS have checked records of cases heard since November 2014 in relation to Bristol County Court, High Court sitting at Bristol and Bristol Family Court. For those courts, HMCTS has identified cases where committal orders were made for imprisonment for contempt of court. Details are contained in the table below. The contemnors may not have been present at court and therefore may not necessarily have begun their term of imprisonment straight away. This data is management information and has been collated specifically to answer this question.

It has not been possible to provide information in relation to Bristol Crown Court or Bristol Magistrates’ Court. Data is not recorded in a way that enables HMCTS to identify all such cases without checking every case file and every daily list since 1 November, which would involve disproportionate costs.

Details of contempt of court hearings are not always held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the public. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and any warrant retained on file. Those not relating to a specific case will be recorded on daily lists and any warrants stored along with other orders. Local practices vary as to how contempts of court are recorded and stored.

HMCTS have checked records of cases heard since November 2014 in relation to Manchester County Court, High Court sitting at Manchester and Manchester Family Court. For those courts, HMCTS have identified one case where a committal orders was made for imprisonment for contempt of court. Details are contained in the table below. The contemnor may not have been present at court and therefore may not necessarily have begun their term of imprisonment straight away. This data is management information and has been collated specifically to answer this question.

It has not been possible to provide information in relation to Manchester Crown Court or Manchester Magistrates’ Court. Data is not recorded in a way that enables HMCTS to identify all such cases without checking every case file and every daily list since 1 November, which would involve disproportionate costs.

Details of contempt of court hearings are not always held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the public. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and any warrant retained on file. Those not relating to a specific case will be recorded on daily lists and any warrants stored along with other orders. Local practices vary as to how contempts of court are recorded and stored.

HMCTS have checked records of cases heard since November 2014 in relation to Leeds County Court, High Court sitting at Leeds and Leeds Family Court. For those courts, HMCTS have identified no cases where a committal order was made for imprisonment for contempt of court.

It has not been possible to provide information in relation to Leeds Crown Court or Leeds Magistrates’ Court. Data are not recorded in a way that enables HMCTS to identify all such cases without checking every case file and every daily list since 1 November which would involve disproportionate costs.

Details of contempt of court hearings are not always held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the public. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and any warrant retained on file. Those not relating to a specific case will be recorded on daily lists and any warrants stored along with other orders. Local practices vary as to how contempts of court are recorded and stored.

HMCTS have checked records of cases heard since November 2014 in relation to Sheffield County Court, High Court sitting at Sheffield and Sheffield Family Court. For those courts, HMCTS have identified no cases where a committal order was made for imprisonment for contempt of court.

It has not been possible to provide information in relation to Sheffield Crown Court or Sheffield Magistrates’ Court. Data are not recorded in a way that enables HMCTS to identify all such cases without checking every case file and every daily list since 1 November which would involve disproportionate costs.

Statistics on offenders recalled and returned to custody are published quarterly in the Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) bulletin. In accordance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics dates for future releases of this bulletin have been pre-announced in the Department’s statistical publication schedule. This is available online at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/about/statistics

As part of the latest release of OMSQ, my Department published a consultation document and set of statistical tables proposing how this information on recalls could be presented in the future. These new tables aim to ensure that the changes this Government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme have made in this area can be monitored. These documents are available online at the link below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2014

The proposed set of statistical tables do not currently include a separate breakdown for recalls by Community Rehabilitation Companies activated during the licence period and supervision period. I have asked my officials to consider this request, alongside other consultation responses, as they develop the final tables that will be included with the next edition of Offender Management Statistics Quarterly which is due to be published on 30 April 2015.

Details of contempt of court hearings are not held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a wide variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the press. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and the warrant retained on file. Those not relating to specific cases will be recorded on daily lists and warrants stored along with other orders.

In order to identify all cases where a contempt of court occurred in every Crown Court centre, County Court centre, Family Court centre, magistrates’ court and the Royal Courts of Justice, HMCTS would have to manually check daily records for each courtroom at every court centre for the 4 months from November 2014 to February 2015. This would incur disproportionate costs.

Details of contempt of court hearings are not held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a wide variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the press. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and the warrant retained on file. Those not relating to specific cases will be recorded on daily lists and warrants stored along with other orders.

In order to identify all cases where a contempt of court occurred in every Crown Court centre, County Court centre, Family Court centre, magistrates’ court and the Royal Courts of Justice, HMCTS would have to manually check daily records for each courtroom at every court centre for the 14 months from January 2014 to February 2015. This would incur disproportionate costs.

The Royal Courts of Justice has 122 court rooms which are available for use by the High Court. The Birmingham Civil Justice Centre has 56 court rooms available for use by the High Court, family court and the county court. The use of a courtroom for any particular case will be a matter for listing and the judiciary.

In order to answer 223311 Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) would have to manually check every court log from 1 May 2013 to the present at Birmingham County Court, Birmingham Family Court and the High Court at Birmingham. Birmingham County Court and Birmingham Family Court between them heard in excess of 24,000 cases, each of which would have to be manually checked for any hearings for contempt of court.

HMCTS have been able to check records of cases heard since November 2014, and identified those where committal orders were made for imprisonment for contempt of court. The contemnors weren’t all present at court and did not necessarily begin their term of imprisonment straight away. There were none at Birmingham Family Court. Details of committal orders made for imprisonment for contempt of court at Birmingham County Court and High Court since 1 November 2014 can be found in the table below. This data has been collated specifically to answer this question and has not been checked to the standard of Official Statistics.

In order to answer 223311 Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) would have to manually check every court log from 1 May 2013 to the present at Birmingham County Court, Birmingham Family Court and the High Court at Birmingham. Birmingham County Court and Birmingham Family Court between them heard in excess of 24,000 cases, each of which would have to be manually checked for any hearings for contempt of court.

HMCTS have been able to check records of cases heard since November 2014, and identified those where committal orders were made for imprisonment for contempt of court. The contemnors weren’t all present at court and did not necessarily begin their term of imprisonment straight away. There were none at Birmingham Family Court. Details of committal orders made for imprisonment for contempt of court at Birmingham County Court and High Court since 1 November 2014 can be found in the table below. This data has been collated specifically to answer this question and has not been checked to the standard of Official Statistics.

Details of the gender of those receiving non molestation orders (ex-parte and with notice), and occupancy orders (ex-parte and with notice) since 2011 can only be obtained by manually checking every case file at disproportionate costs.

Figures requested for non molestation and occupancy orders applied for by each firm of solicitors in courts in a) Sussex and b) West Midlands are available and provided as extracted from the central MoJ database on family cases, in the accompanying tables.

Domestic violence and abuse is unacceptable and no one should have to experience it. It is right that the family court has the power to take swift action to protect families and children from domestic abuse. We are confident that the court procedures for making non-molestation orders are sufficiently robust and in each case the court will make a decision whether to make an order based on the circumstances of the case including the need to secure the health, safety and well-being of the applicant and of any relevant child.

Details of contempt of court hearings are not held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a wide variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the press. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and the warrant retained on file. Those not relating to specific cases will be recorded on daily lists and warrants stored along with other orders.

The High Court in London has been able to check its records since November 2014 and have imprisoned two people for contempt of court, both of which were heard in open court. The details are provided in the table below:

However, in order to identify any cases where a contempt of court occurred in the courts in Birmingham HMCTS would have to manually check every court file at each court for the relevant period. This would incur disproportionate costs.

Whilst prisons log the offence for which prisoners are sent to prison, they do not record the details that have been requested. In order to obtain the requested information, the individual records of all prisoners currently held in prisons, together with those that have been discharged during the period requested, would need to be located and individually checked. This would incur disproportionate costs.

Details of contempt of court hearings are not held on Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) case management systems, and HMCTS do not centrally collate data on contempt of court cases. Contempt of court can cover a wide variety of circumstances and can be committed by a party in a case or by someone unconnected with specific proceedings such as a juror or a member of the press. Those relating to a specific case will be noted on the court log or daily list and the warrant retained on file. Those not relating to specific cases will be recorded on daily lists and warrants stored along with other orders.

The High Court in London has been able to check its records since November 2014 and have imprisoned two people for contempt of court, both of which were heard in open court. The details are provided in the table below:

However, in order to identify any cases where a contempt of court occurred in the courts in Birmingham HMCTS would have to manually check every court file at each court for the relevant period. This would incur disproportionate costs.

Whilst prisons log the offence for which prisoners are sent to prison, they do not record the details that have been requested. In order to obtain the requested information, the individual records of all prisoners currently held in prisons, together with those that have been discharged during the period requested, would need to be located and individually checked. This would incur disproportionate costs.

HSE collect statistics on injuries through the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations but not on explosions of manhole covers. Since 2000 there was one injury reported where the incident involved an explosion lifting a manhole cover.

HSE are working with utility providers to understand how and why incidents like this occur.

Clearly, we can change the law. If fire and rescue authorities decide that they will not follow the law, we will spot that because we have also undertaken to audit this process and their adoption of new fitness principles. The Secretary of State also has powers to intervene. I have no indication that fire and rescue authorities will not adhere to the national service framework. If hon. Members know differently, they should let me know.

Non-molestation orders are an important form of protection for those suffering or at risk of domestic violence. Legal aid funds applications, regardless of the applicant’s means. We accept current orders, or those made in the previous 24 months as the evidence required to access legal aid in private family law matters.

The MoJ keeps the impacts of legal aid reforms under review. While it is true that the number of non-molestation orders applied for through the courts has increased since implementation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, published data does not support the position that this is due to such orders being a form of acceptable evidence of domestic violence required to access legal aid funding in private family law child or finance arrangement matters. We are confident that the court procedures for making non-molestation orders are sufficiently robust.

The Ministry of Justice has commissioned an extensive research programme to investigate individual behavioural responses following the legal aid reforms. This will provide robust findings on the prevalence of social and civil justice problems and the ways in which people resolve these problems both within and outside of the justice system. Findings from this programme are expected in Autumn 2015.

All these data are available from the Office for Budget Responsibility’s databank, including the Office for National Statistics outturn data (published 22^nd November 2014) and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s independent forecast (consistent with the Economic and Fiscal Outlook December 2014 and the Autumn Statement 2014).

1. UK Total Managed Expenditure in nominal sterling.

1. Gross Domestic Product in nominal sterling.

1. Total Managed Expenditure expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product.

Variances when comparing the most up to date figures set out above against the Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis (command paper) are due to these figures including the latest outturn data, incorporating the latest forecast judgement by the Office for Budget Responsibility and the latest classification changes made by the Office for National Statistics.

Since the Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis was published in July 2014 the Office for Budget Responsibility has published their latest forecast in their December 2014 Economic and Fiscal Outlook. The Office for National Statistics regularly update outturn, at a various points in the year, for total managed expenditure and gross domestic product.