❓ WA Attorney General provides statistics on court caseloads, criminal injuries compensation, and criminal property confiscation for February 2007. Some data is unavailable or requires referral to another minister.
AnsweredQoN 1921Legislative 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 Administration 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 Administration 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 Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(i) State Administration 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 Administration 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 Administration 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 Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(i) State Administration 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 Administration 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 Administration 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 Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(i) State Administration 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 Administration 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 Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(i) State Administration 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 Administration 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 Administration 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 Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(i) State Administration 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 Administration 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 Administration 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 Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(e) Childrens Court; (f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(f) Coroners Court; (g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(g) Liquor Licensing Court; (h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(h) Criminal Injuries Assessor; (i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(i) State Administration Tribunal; and (j) Other Boards and tribunals?
(j) Other Boards and tribunals?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
8 May 2007
Response time
49 days
The figures relate to the month of February 2007 unless otherwise stated. 1. (a) 849 (b) 1,600 (c) 2,873 (d) 19,243 (e) 2,806 (f) 3 (inquests only) (g) 3 (h) 33 (i) 637 (j) 472 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 2. (a) 378 (b) 425 (c) 791 (d) 11,754 (e) 888 (f) 197 (comprising 1 inquest and 196 finalisations without inquest) (g) 7 (3 by hearing) (h) 103 (i) 443 (j) 472 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 3. (a) 3,286 (b) 4,432 (c) 2,465 (d) 10,387 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (e) 1,290 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (f) 28 (g) 2 (h) 80 (i) 66 (j) 1,062 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
1. (a) 849 (b) 1,600 (c) 2,873 (d) 19,243 (e) 2,806 (f) 3 (inquests only) (g) 3 (h) 33 (i) 637 (j) 472 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 2. (a) 378 (b) 425 (c) 791 (d) 11,754 (e) 888 (f) 197 (comprising 1 inquest and 196 finalisations without inquest) (g) 7 (3 by hearing) (h) 103 (i) 443 (j) 472 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 3. (a) 3,286 (b) 4,432 (c) 2,465 (d) 10,387 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (e) 1,290 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (f) 28 (g) 2 (h) 80 (i) 66 (j) 1,062 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
1. (a) 849 (b) 1,600 (c) 2,873 (d) 19,243 (e) 2,806 (f) 3 (inquests only) (g) 3 (h) 33 (i) 637 (j) 472 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 2. (a) 378 (b) 425 (c) 791 (d) 11,754 (e) 888 (f) 197 (comprising 1 inquest and 196 finalisations without inquest) (g) 7 (3 by hearing) (h) 103 (i) 443 (j) 472 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 3. (a) 3,286 (b) 4,432 (c) 2,465 (d) 10,387 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (e) 1,290 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (f) 28 (g) 2 (h) 80 (i) 66 (j) 1,062 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 2. (a) 378 (b) 425 (c) 791 (d) 11,754 (e) 888 (f) 197 (comprising 1 inquest and 196 finalisations without inquest) (g) 7 (3 by hearing) (h) 103 (i) 443 (j) 472 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 3. (a) 3,286 (b) 4,432 (c) 2,465 (d) 10,387 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (e) 1,290 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (f) 28 (g) 2 (h) 80 (i) 66 (j) 1,062 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
2. (a) 378 (b) 425 (c) 791 (d) 11,754 (e) 888 (f) 197 (comprising 1 inquest and 196 finalisations without inquest) (g) 7 (3 by hearing) (h) 103 (i) 443 (j) 472 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 3. (a) 3,286 (b) 4,432 (c) 2,465 (d) 10,387 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (e) 1,290 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (f) 28 (g) 2 (h) 80 (i) 66 (j) 1,062 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 3. (a) 3,286 (b) 4,432 (c) 2,465 (d) 10,387 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (e) 1,290 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (f) 28 (g) 2 (h) 80 (i) 66 (j) 1,062 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
3. (a) 3,286 (b) 4,432 (c) 2,465 (d) 10,387 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (e) 1,290 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (f) 28 (g) 2 (h) 80 (i) 66 (j) 1,062 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
(e) 1,290 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (f) 28 (g) 2 (h) 80 (i) 66 (j) 1,062 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
(f) 28 (g) 2 (h) 80 (i) 66 (j) 1,062 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
7. The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
During the month of February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
13. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
13. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
- 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
- 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
- 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
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. 208.3
14. 208.3
1. (a) 849 (b) 1,600 (c) 2,873 (d) 19,243 (e) 2,806 (f) 3 (inquests only) (g) 3 (h) 33 (i) 637 (j) 472 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 2. (a) 378 (b) 425 (c) 791 (d) 11,754 (e) 888 (f) 197 (comprising 1 inquest and 196 finalisations without inquest) (g) 7 (3 by hearing) (h) 103 (i) 443 (j) 472 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 3. (a) 3,286 (b) 4,432 (c) 2,465 (d) 10,387 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (e) 1,290 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (f) 28 (g) 2 (h) 80 (i) 66 (j) 1,062 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
1. (a) 849 (b) 1,600 (c) 2,873 (d) 19,243 (e) 2,806 (f) 3 (inquests only) (g) 3 (h) 33 (i) 637 (j) 472 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 2. (a) 378 (b) 425 (c) 791 (d) 11,754 (e) 888 (f) 197 (comprising 1 inquest and 196 finalisations without inquest) (g) 7 (3 by hearing) (h) 103 (i) 443 (j) 472 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 3. (a) 3,286 (b) 4,432 (c) 2,465 (d) 10,387 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (e) 1,290 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (f) 28 (g) 2 (h) 80 (i) 66 (j) 1,062 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 2. (a) 378 (b) 425 (c) 791 (d) 11,754 (e) 888 (f) 197 (comprising 1 inquest and 196 finalisations without inquest) (g) 7 (3 by hearing) (h) 103 (i) 443 (j) 472 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 3. (a) 3,286 (b) 4,432 (c) 2,465 (d) 10,387 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (e) 1,290 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (f) 28 (g) 2 (h) 80 (i) 66 (j) 1,062 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
2. (a) 378 (b) 425 (c) 791 (d) 11,754 (e) 888 (f) 197 (comprising 1 inquest and 196 finalisations without inquest) (g) 7 (3 by hearing) (h) 103 (i) 443 (j) 472 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 3. (a) 3,286 (b) 4,432 (c) 2,465 (d) 10,387 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (e) 1,290 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (f) 28 (g) 2 (h) 80 (i) 66 (j) 1,062 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 3. (a) 3,286 (b) 4,432 (c) 2,465 (d) 10,387 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (e) 1,290 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (f) 28 (g) 2 (h) 80 (i) 66 (j) 1,062 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
3. (a) 3,286 (b) 4,432 (c) 2,465 (d) 10,387 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (e) 1,290 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (f) 28 (g) 2 (h) 80 (i) 66 (j) 1,062 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
(e) 1,290 as at 31 December 2006, being the most recent available. (f) 28 (g) 2 (h) 80 (i) 66 (j) 1,062 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
(f) 28 (g) 2 (h) 80 (i) 66 (j) 1,062 (Prisoners Review Board, Supervised Release Review Board and Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board) 4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
4. This question should be directed to the Minister for Police. 5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
5. 74 (15.4%) 6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
6. 286 (4.1%) Imprisonment rates vary between court levels. In the superior courts, where the most serious criminal offences are tried, 48% of convicted offenders were imprisoned last month. 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 easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
7. The information necessary to provide an answer to this question is not easily 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. 8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
8. 146 9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
9. 133 10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
10-11. 83. See attached Table 1 for details of each original offence/s, breach reasons and outcomes. 12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
12. During the month of February the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions received a total of $173,349.65, 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 February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
During the month of February the Director of Public Prosecutions obtained Declarations of Confiscation in relation to property with an estimated return to the State of $202,618.00. During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
During the Month of February 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. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
13. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
13. 4 applications were rejected. - 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
- 2 applications were refused under section 17(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to where an alleged offence is committed but no person is charged with the alleged offence. - 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
- 1 application was refused under section 12 (3) (a) 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". - 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
- 1 application was refused under section 16(4) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 which relates to alleged offences where charges have not been determined. 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. 208.3
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. 208.3
14. 208.3
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.