1-20 of 21 results for subject:"Thompson, Robert"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.284 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.002 seconds
- Search query
- subject:"Thompson, Robert"
- We searched for
- subject_t:"Thompson, Robert" OR subject_t:"Robert Thompson" OR subject_ses:449454
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
There will be an e-petition debate relating to a public inquiry into the James Bulger murder case. The Petitions Committee has agreed to debate the petition on 25 March 2024. The debate will be held in Westminster Hall and will be opened by Sir George Howarth MP, on behalf of the Petitions Committee.
There will be an e-petition debate relating to a public inquiry into the James Bulger murder case. The Petitions Committee has agreed to debate the petition on 25 March 2024. The debate will be held in Westminster Hall and will be opened by Sir George Howarth MP, on behalf of...
To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the injunction granted by the Family Division of 22 June 2001 in respect of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, what applications to vary that decision have been made and on behalf of whom; how such applications were funded; and what grounds were...
To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the injunction granted by the Family Division of 22 June 2001 in respect of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, what applications to vary that decision have been made and on behalf of whom; how such applications were funded; and what grounds were...
In 2010, Jon Venables was arrested and charged, under his new identity, with offences relating to the viewing of child pornography. On 21 June 2010, in the context of those criminal proceedings, Mr Justice Bean amended the Injunction so as to prohibit the publication of information revealed in proceedings in open court, insofar as such information would be likely to lead to the identification of (a) Venables’ then-current name; (b) the address at which he was living immediately before his recall to prison in February 2010; (c) the location at which he was, at that time, being held in custody; or (d) his then-current appearance.
Those amendments resulted from an application by Counsel for Jon Venables on the basis that revealing such information would be likely to lead to the identification of Jon Venables. I am unable to say how this application was funded because the variation was sought by a third party
At a hearing at the Central Criminal Court on 23 July 2010 Mr Justice Bean varied the order, on the application of media organisations, to permit disclosure of the county in which Venables was living before his recall to custody. The purpose of this was to enable identification of the relevant police force and probation service involved in his supervision. I am unable to say how this application was funded because the variation was not sought by this office. At the same time, an application by News Group and Mirror Group Newspapers, who opposed the continued prohibition of the publication of Jon Venables’ new name, was heard and rejected.
On 31 August 2012, on the application of the Secretary of State for Justice, the High Court amended the terms of the Injunction. This application would have been funded by central government. The amendment was made to ensure it prohibited any publication of a person purporting to be identified or depicted as Venables or Thompson.
On 7 February 2018, Venables was sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment for three offences of making indecent photographs of children and one offence of possession of a paedophile manual. On 7 February, on the application of Jon Venables, Mr Justice Edis amended the Injunction to permit reporting of information heard in public at the hearing, though the amendments were such that the Injunction continues to protect the new identity and appearance of Venables and certain information which might be used to identify him. I am unable to say how this application was funded beause the varation was not sought by this office
There is an application currently before the Family Court brought by Mr Ralph Stephen Bulger and Mr James Patrick Bulger to vary the Injunction. Various grounds have been provided in support of this application, and it is anticipated these grounds will be finalised in the applicants’ written submissions required to be filed in this case by 23 November 2018. I am unable to say how this application is funded because the variation is not sought by this office.
To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the injunction granted by the Family Division of 22 June 2001 in respect of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, how many allegations for breach of that injunction have been received by his Department; on what dates and on behalf of whom such...
To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the injunction granted by the Family Division of 22 June 2001 in respect of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, how many allegations for breach of that injunction have been received by his Department; on what dates and on behalf of whom such...
Year | Number of referrals for alleged breaches of the order |
2018 | 25 |
2017 | 12 |
2016 | 1 |
2015 | 1 |
2014 | 2 |
2013 | 32 |
2012 | 0 |
2011 | 1 |
2010 | 1 |
2009-2003 | 0 |
2002 | 1 |
2001 | 1 |
Allegations about breaches of the injunction protecting the identities of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson can be received from anybody, including members of the public, employers and law enforcement agencies. We are not aware of how they are funded if they are. Referrals are most often made on the basis that the injunction has been breached by the sharing of prohibited images or information purporting to identify Venables or his whereabouts.
To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the injunction granted by the Family Division on 22 June 2001 in respect of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, what costs were incurred by his and other government departments in respect of matters relating to that injunction, including any amounts paid by...
To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the injunction granted by the Family Division on 22 June 2001 in respect of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, what costs were incurred by his and other government departments in respect of matters relating to that injunction, including any amounts paid by...
This question refers to costs incurred over a considerable period of time. The Government Legal Department (‘GLD’) has carried out a reasonable and proportionate interrogation of its digital records and has ascertained that the following costs have been incurred (all figures given exclude VAT):
(1) On matters relating to applications to vary the Injunction:
- The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) incurred £16,767.40 on time spent by GLD, plus £19,990.01 on counsel’s fees and other disbursements.
- The Ministry of Justice incurred £432.00 on time spent by GLD on matters relating to the current application to vary the Injunction.
(2) On matters relating to breaches of the Injunction:
- AGO incurred £33,620.90 on time spent by GLD, plus £30,240.36 on counsel’s fees and other disbursements.
(3) On matters relating to the application of the Secretary of State for Justice in 2012 to vary the Injunction:
- The Ministry of Justice incurred £2,479.10 on time spent by GLD, plus £8,546.40 on counsel’s fees and other disbursements.
These figures do not include any internal costs incurred by individual government departments in terms of time spent by their officials in matters relating to the Injunction.
To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the injunction granted by the Family Division on 22 June 2001 in respect of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, what data security policies and procedures apply to his and other government departments and all counsel instructed in connection with that injunction, including...
To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the injunction granted by the Family Division on 22 June 2001 in respect of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, what data security policies and procedures apply to his and other government departments and all counsel instructed in connection with that injunction, including...
The Attorney General’s Office and the Government Legal Department are bound by statutory obligations and act in accordance with publicly available policies on the gov.uk website, as well as the Subject Access Code of Practice published by the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is available here.
The Attorney General’s guidelines on information security and government work that are followed by external counsel doing government work are available here.
Guidance for handling protectively marked material that is followed by external counsel is available here.
The Attorney General’s Office also has an internal Office Security Policy which is not published, because it contains very specific security information about the office necessary to protect information and staff which it would not be appropriate to publish.
External counsel that do government work are data controllers in their own right with all the attendant responsibilities that entails. They are members of a professionally regulated body and formally undertake to maintain the integrity of the data that they handle.
Statement on the Parole Board's decisions in the cases of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. - Inc ref to 13 March 2000, 346 c21-30.
Statement on the Parole Board's decisions in the cases of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. - Inc ref to 13 March 2000, 346 c21-30.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if his Department was informed of allegations about an incident involving Robert Thompson which took place on 16th January 1997; what action was taken; and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if his Department was informed of allegations about an incident involving Robert Thompson which took place on 16th January 1997; what action was taken; and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what criteria he will use in setting a release date for Robert Thompson and Jon Venables; and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what criteria he will use in setting a release date for Robert Thompson and Jon Venables; and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will ensure that neither Robert Thompson nor Jon Venables will be relocated in Suffolk or neighbouring counties.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will ensure that neither Robert Thompson nor Jon Venables will be relocated in Suffolk or neighbouring counties.
Practice direction: trial of children and young persons in the Crown Court: guidance on the conduct of such trials placed in the Library after the Home Secretary's statement on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thompson and Venables who were convicted of the murder of James Bulger. Home Office. 2000.
Practice direction: trial of children and young persons in the Crown Court: guidance on the conduct of such trials placed in the Library after the Home Secretary's statement on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thompson and Venables who were convicted of the...
Statement on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thompson and Venables. (Inc ref to direction by Lord Chief Justice to judges on the trial of children and young people in the Crown Courts - in Library).
Statement on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thompson and Venables. (Inc ref to direction by Lord Chief Justice to judges on the trial of children and young people in the Crown Courts - in Library).
Statement on decision of European Court of Human Rights on case brought by Robert Thompson and Jon Venables against United Kingdom Government. (Copy of judgment has been placed in Library).
Statement on decision of European Court of Human Rights on case brought by Robert Thompson and Jon Venables against United Kingdom Government. (Copy of judgment has been placed in Library).
Lords statement on European Court of Human Rights' judgment in the case brought against the UK Government by Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. (Copy of judgment in Library).
Lords statement on European Court of Human Rights' judgment in the case brought against the UK Government by Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. (Copy of judgment in Library).
Order made by the Hon Mr Justice Morland in the matter of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. Injunction imposing reporting restrictions.
Order made by the Hon Mr Justice Morland in the matter of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. Injunction imposing reporting restrictions.
Reports of the Commission in regard to the applications of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables v the United Kingdom. European Commission of Human Rights. 1999.
Reports of the Commission in regard to the applications of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables v the United Kingdom. European Commission of Human Rights. 1999.
Letter by Lord Williams of Mostyn to Lord Harris of Greenwich concerning the costs to public funds in the cases of Thompson and Venables. HO. 1998.
Letter by Lord Williams of Mostyn to Lord Harris of Greenwich concerning the costs to public funds in the cases of Thompson and Venables. HO. 1998.
Statement on how they intend to implement the House of Lords judgment in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte v and T given on 12 June 1997.
Statement on how they intend to implement the House of Lords judgment in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte v and T given on 12 June 1997.
To ask the Secretary of State fro the Home Department, how he intends to implement the House of Lords judgement in Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte V and T given on 12th June.
To ask the Secretary of State fro the Home Department, how he intends to implement the House of Lords judgement in Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte V and T given on 12th June.