❓ WA Parliamentary Question on Notice regarding caseloads, imprisonment rates, and financial matters across various courts and tribunals under the Attorney General's portfolio. Includes data on completed and pending cases, confiscation proceeds, and rejected criminal injuries compensation applications.
AnsweredQoN 2187Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(b) District Court; (c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(b) District Court; (c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(b) District Court; (c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(b) District Court; (c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(i) State Administrative Tribunal; and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(b) District Court; (c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(c) Family Court; (d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(d) Magistrates Court; (e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(i) State Administrative Tribunal and (j) other Boards and Tribunals?
(j) other Boards and Tribunals?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
12 June 2007
Response time
35 days
* As the Liquor Licensing Court has been abolished, no new matters are being accepted. However, matters that were already in the system are in the process of being completed. (2) (a) 245 (b) 591 (c) 689 (d) 10,461 (e) 864 (f) 137 (comprising 2 inquests and 135 finalisations without inquest) (g) 0 (h) 120 (i) 393 (j) Prisoners Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 603 (3) (a) 2,931 (b) 4,455* (c) 2,821 (d) 42,160 * (e) 2,391 * (f) 33 matters awaiting inquest (g) 3 (h) 61 (i) 30 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 837 (*) as at 31 March 2007. (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 53 (12.4%). (6) 288 (4.6%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 58.2% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in April 2007, compared to 2.4% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 148. (9) 159. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper _______] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(2) (a) 245 (b) 591 (c) 689 (d) 10,461 (e) 864 (f) 137 (comprising 2 inquests and 135 finalisations without inquest) (g) 0 (h) 120 (i) 393 (j) Prisoners Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 603 (3) (a) 2,931 (b) 4,455* (c) 2,821 (d) 42,160 * (e) 2,391 * (f) 33 matters awaiting inquest (g) 3 (h) 61 (i) 30 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 837 (*) as at 31 March 2007. (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 53 (12.4%). (6) 288 (4.6%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 58.2% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in April 2007, compared to 2.4% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 148. (9) 159. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper _______] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(3) (a) 2,931 (b) 4,455* (c) 2,821 (d) 42,160 * (e) 2,391 * (f) 33 matters awaiting inquest (g) 3 (h) 61 (i) 30 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 837 (*) as at 31 March 2007. (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 53 (12.4%). (6) 288 (4.6%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 58.2% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in April 2007, compared to 2.4% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 148. (9) 159. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper _______] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 53 (12.4%). (6) 288 (4.6%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 58.2% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in April 2007, compared to 2.4% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 148. (9) 159. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper _______] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(5) 53 (12.4%). (6) 288 (4.6%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 58.2% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in April 2007, compared to 2.4% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 148. (9) 159. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper _______] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(6) 288 (4.6%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 58.2% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in April 2007, compared to 2.4% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 148. (9) 159. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper _______] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 148. (9) 159. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper _______] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(8) 148. (9) 159. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper _______] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(9) 159. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper _______] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper _______] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(2) (a) 245 (b) 591 (c) 689 (d) 10,461 (e) 864 (f) 137 (comprising 2 inquests and 135 finalisations without inquest) (g) 0 (h) 120 (i) 393 (j) Prisoners Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 603 (3) (a) 2,931 (b) 4,455* (c) 2,821 (d) 42,160 * (e) 2,391 * (f) 33 matters awaiting inquest (g) 3 (h) 61 (i) 30 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 837 (*) as at 31 March 2007. (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 53 (12.4%). (6) 288 (4.6%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 58.2% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in April 2007, compared to 2.4% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 148. (9) 159. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper _______] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(3) (a) 2,931 (b) 4,455* (c) 2,821 (d) 42,160 * (e) 2,391 * (f) 33 matters awaiting inquest (g) 3 (h) 61 (i) 30 (j) Prisoner Review, Mentally Impaired Accused Review and Supervised Review Release Boards - Total = 837 (*) as at 31 March 2007. (4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 53 (12.4%). (6) 288 (4.6%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 58.2% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in April 2007, compared to 2.4% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 148. (9) 159. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper _______] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(4) This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. (5) 53 (12.4%). (6) 288 (4.6%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 58.2% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in April 2007, compared to 2.4% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 148. (9) 159. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper _______] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(5) 53 (12.4%). (6) 288 (4.6%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 58.2% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in April 2007, compared to 2.4% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 148. (9) 159. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper _______] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(6) 288 (4.6%). NB: Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 58.2% of convicted offenders were imprisoned in April 2007, compared to 2.4% in the lower courts. Lower courts deal with many minor offences for which imprisonment is not a sentencing option. (7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 148. (9) 159. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper _______] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(7) The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not readily available. Court case management systems are designed to provide full and accurate data with respect to individuals, so bail and offending details for particular individuals can be determined and compared, as necessary, but only on the basis of having the identity of the individual. There is no means by which this general question can be answered, except by extensive manual inspection of case management records, for which resources are unavailable. Should the Member have a specific query regarding an individual, I will endeavour to provide an answer. (8) 148. (9) 159. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper _______] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(8) 148. (9) 159. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper _______] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(9) 159. (10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper _______] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(10) & (11) See attached table [tabled paper _______] for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. (12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(12) During the month of April the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $306,218.25, in relation to matters under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000. These proceeds were forwarded to the Department of the Attorney General for payment into the Confiscation Proceeds Account. During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
During the month of April the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $919,924.00. During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
During the month of April certain property was automatically confiscated by operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 however as the Court has not made the declaration of confiscation for these matters it is not possible to estimate the likely return in relation to that property. (13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(13) 12 applications were rejected: Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
Five were refused under section 38 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an award is not made when an applicant did not assist investigators investigating the offence; Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
Two applications were refused under section 12 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the Assessor being satisfied "that the claimed injury has occurred and did so as a consequence of the commission of a proved offence"; Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
Two applications were refused under section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to whether the applicant has suffered mental and nervous shock; Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
Two applications were refused under section 17 (3) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 relating to alleged offences; and One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
One application was refused under section 39 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to the victim making the application being engaged in criminal conduct. The value of rejected claims cannot be provided. The dollar value of a claim is only ever established when the case is processed and an award made by the Assessor of Criminal Injuries Compensation. (14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
(14) The actual FTEs at 30 April 2007 was 205.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.