Overarching equalities statement: criminal law
Updated 29 June 2023
© Crown copyright 2023
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-2021-overarching-documents/overarching-equalities-statement-criminal-law
Purpose of Document
1. This equality analysis has been undertaken to assist the Secretary of State in deciding whether to (a) amend legislation to ensure that where memorials are damaged or desecrated, the courts are able to sentence appropriately, and (b) extend the criminal offences at ss 16 - 19 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the “position of trust” offences) to capture other roles or relationships within their parameters, by indicating any likely equalities impacts of the proposed changes that the PCSC Bill would introduce. This analysis supports the Secretary of State in fulfilling his duty under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) by having due regard to the equality impact of implementing the proposed provisions.
2. This document assesses the potential equalities benefits and risks that have been identified in relation to (a) amending legislation, to ensure that where memorials are damaged or desecrated the courts are able to sentence appropriately; and (b) the extension of the “positions of trust” offences. It considers the justification for the change, any necessary mitigating actions which have been proposed to reduce the likelihood of the risks and includes an assessment of any equalities benefits.
Ministry of Justice and the Public Sector Equality Duty
3. Under the Equality Act 2010, [footnote 1] when exercising its functions, the MoJ has an ongoing legal duty as part of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) to pay due regard to the need to:
- eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other prohibited conduct under the Equality Act 2010;
- advance equality of opportunity between different groups of persons who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and
- foster good relations between different groups.
4. We also recognise that the MoJ, as a service provider, has a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people.
5. Having due regard to the PSED needs to be considered in light of the nine protected characteristics:
- Race
- Sexual Orientation
- Marriage/Civil Partnership
- Gender (sex)
- Religion or Belief
- Gender Reassignment
- Disability
- Age
- Pregnancy/Maternity
Policy Summary
Policy: Amending legislation to ensure that where memorials are damaged or desecrated the courts are able to sentence appropriately.
6. A Private Members’ Bill, the Desecration of War Memorials Bill was introduced to Parliament under a ten-minute rule motion on 3 February 2010. It proposed an amendment to the Criminal Damage Act 1971 to make provision for damage to war memorials, but the Bill did not progress due to the 2010 General Election.
7. During the demonstrations which took place in summer 2020, protesters targeted statues, including war memorials and other commemorations of cultural significance. This sparked significant interest in the issue in the House of Commons, particularly from Conservative MPs.
8. On the 23 June 2020, backbench MPs asked the Government to support a new Desecration of War Memorials Bill, intended to introduce a new and specific offence where a person destroys, damages or otherwise desecrates a war memorial. The MPs expressed concern that under the current law, damage to war memorial of £5,000 or less, must be tried summarily and has a maximum custodial sentence of three months, which does not reflect the severity of the crime, nor the public offence caused.
9. The aim of this proposal is to introduce an amendment to the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 to remove consideration of monetary value with respect to criminal damage to memorials which would otherwise, in some cases, determine venue and limit the court’s sentencing powers. These changes will ensure that where memorials are damaged or desecrated, the courts are able to sentence appropriately.
10. Where damage to a memorial is worth £5,000 or less, it will no longer be treated as a summary only offence. Instead it can be tried either way and attracts a maximum custodial sentence of ten years.
Policy: Extending the “positions of trust” offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
11. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 contains a number of offences which criminalise sexual activity with a person under the age of 18 by people who hold a “position of trust” in respect of that young person even if such activity involves a victim who is over the age of 16 and appears to be consensual, effectively raising the age of consent from 16 to 18 in those circumstances.
12. The offences were not intended to cover all scenarios in which a person might have contact with, or a supervisory role of, those aged under 18. The “positions of trust” offences were so defined to target those where the young person has some element of dependency on the adult involved, often combined with an element of vulnerability of the young person: for example, those caring for a young person in a residential care home, hospital or educational institution.
13. These offences build on the “general” child sex offences, which make it a crime for anyone to engage in sexual activity with someone under the age of 16, whether or not they consent to that activity. Non-consensual sexual activity, whatever the age of the victim, is also illegal.
14. The existing offences seek to balance the need to protect those young people in vulnerable positions while respecting the rights of all young adults to give legal consent to sexual activity from the age of 16.
15. We have carried out an internal review to ensure that existing offences are being used appropriately and effectively. By conducting this engagement exercise, it allowed us to test how effectively the current law is working and how well it is understood. It also allowed us to engage with organisations that work with young people across a range of sectors to understand their concerns and ensure that the right measures are in place to protect young people from inappropriate behaviour.
16. Our review found that the current laws are not providing full protection to young adults who have ultimately been abused by adults on whom they are dependent and in situations where they could be considered vulnerable.
17. The review found that this was particularly the case for adults in positions of trust over young people in sports and religious/faith activities. Sports coaches have, unlike many other roles, the opportunity to physically touch the young people in their care. They also have the opportunity to spend time, including overnight stays, with those in their care, and can have a very powerful influence over a young person’s future in the sport.
18. We also found that religious leaders are in a particular position of trust because of their centrality to the life not just of a young person, but of that person’s whole family and community.
19. We recognise, however, that there are other roles which may be exploited in this way, which is why we will make it easier for the government to add further roles by secondary legislation if evidence suggests this is needed in the future.
20. The objective of the policy is to extend the roles defined as “positions of trust” to protect children, including more young people aged 16-17 from sexual exploitation and abuse.
Sources of Information
21. The main source of information used for this analysis is data on Criminal Justice System (CJS) outcomes (specifically sentencing) by age, sex and ethnicity in the annual Criminal Justice System Statistics Quarterly (CJSQ), which is published every year. [footnote 2]
22. We have also consulted:
- Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2018; [footnote 3]
- Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2017; , [footnote 4], [footnote 5]
- HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Offender Equalities Annual Report 2018 to 2019; [footnote 6]
- The Nature of Violent Crime in England and Wales: year ending March 2018; [footnote 7]
- 2011 United Kingdom Census. [footnote 8]
Availability of data
23. Detailed data about sentenced prisoners in the affected cohort is widely available for three of the nine protected characteristics – age, sex and ethnicity. We have used this data for our equality analysis. Although there are some data available on those serving sentences of imprisonment by other protected characteristics (see HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Offender Equalities 2018/19 report [footnote 9]) this does not allow us to compare the cohort of prisoners who will be affected by this change as we cannot match offenders by these characteristics to specific offence committed. We have not presented data where they are not available at sufficient quality and with sufficient coverage to be meaningful. Data is presented where known, therefore where sex, ethnicity or age are not stated or unknown they are omitted from analysis.
Summary of Equalities Impacts
24. On the basis of the data and evidence currently available, the following impacts in relation to protected characteristics have been considered in relation to their relevance to the proposed amendments to criminal damage to memorials legislation and extensions to the position of trust offences.
Affected Groups
25. The proposed changes will have a direct impact on offenders who are convicted of criminal damage, vandalism, or otherwise desecration of memorials. Under the new measure, damage to a memorial of £5,000 or less, will no longer be restricted to summary trial and a maximum 3 months imprisonment. Such cases may be dealt with in the Crown Court and attract a sentence of up to 10 years imprisonment.
26. The proposals will also have a direct impact on individuals who are currently outside the scope of the positions of trust offences but whose behaviour would become criminal after the proposed changes are introduced. This principally applies to sports coaches and religious/faith leaders, who are aged 18 or over, engaging in sexual activities with 16-17 year olds over whom they hold a “position of trust”.
27. Memorial damage offenders could be affected by longer periods of custody, followed by a corresponding longer period of probation on licence, as well as criminal court proceedings and possible subsequent sentences. Offenders who may have received other disposals such as community sentences or suspended sentences may now receive longer custodial sentences due to the increased perceived seriousness of their crimes. The change will also affect the offenders’ families including spouses and civil partners as well as children, but data on the impact on marriage/civil partnership is unavailable.
28. Positions of trust offenders could be affected by criminal court proceedings and possible subsequent sentences. The change will also affect the offenders’ families including spouses and civil partners as well as children, but data on the impact on marriage/civil partnership is unavailable.
Offenders
29. For the purposes of this analysis, we assume that the composition of the group of offenders that commit statue vandalism is the same as that for the more general criminal or malicious damage offence, and that the composition of the group of offenders. In respect of positions of trust, the proposed changes that would apply to certain activities within the field of sports or religion is the same as that for the existing abuse of positions of trust offences by the protected characteristics of ethnicity, sex, and age. We have compared the group of offenders committing criminal or malicious damage offences and the group of offenders committing abuse of positions of trust offences with the composition of the general population of England and Wales to identify any particular protected characteristics that may be disproportionately affected by the proposed changes. We have also compiled statistics on the conviction rate and custody rate by characteristic, which can be compared with the overall statistic to identify disproportionality. All statistics are reported in Annex A.
30. The offender data used for this exercise is from 2019. The statistics on the general population of England and Wales are from 2018.
31. The data suggests that some characteristics may be overrepresented in the offender population affected by this change, while other characteristics are represented in similar proportions in the affected group and in the comparison group (the general population of England and Wales). Specifically:
Gender/Sex
Memorial Damage
32. Men represent around 50% of the adult population in England and Wales. However, males compose 89.4% of those convicted of criminal or malicious damage and 94.6% of those sentenced for the offence.
Positions of Trust
33. Males compose 86.2% of those convicted of abuses of positions of trust and 90% of those sentenced for the offence. These overrepresentations are consistent with trends observed at various points of the criminal justice system.
Race and Ethnicity
Positions of Trust
34. Where ethnicity was known, the proportion of White offenders in the group of those convicted (87.1%) and sentenced (85.5%) for positions of trust abuses is similar with the proportion in the general population of England and Wales (86.0%). This is contrasted to an overrepresentation of Black offenders as a proportion of those convicted (5.0%) and of those sentenced (5.9%) relative to the adult population (3.3%). It was not possible to draw inference for other ethnic groups (Asian, Mixed, Chinese and Other) because sample size was too small (fewer than 10 cases cumulatively between 2009 and 2019).
35. The latest ethnicity data about the general population produced by the Office for National Statistics is the 2011 United Kingdom Census, which could be outdated and no longer representative of the population in 2020. Therefore, the comparisons between the offender population and the general population could draw inaccurate conclusions.
Memorial Damage
36. The offender data from the published Criminal Justice System statistics does not record the ethnicity of offenders for the statue vandalism offence. We are therefore unable to identify the cohort of offenders affected by the proposed changes by this protected characteristic.
Age
37. There are different sentencing regimes in place for adults and children and this change will not affect children as the policy will only apply to adult offenders (those aged 18+). This reflects the different purpose and focus of the youth justice system which is more on reparation and rehabilitation than on punishment.
38. For statue vandalism offences, offenders aged 21-24, 25-29, and 30-39 appear to be overrepresented with respect to the general population. These three cohorts compose on average around 10 percentage points more in the offender group than in the general population This is matched by an underrepresentation of the older cohorts (50-59, 60-69, and 70+), whilst offenders aged 18-20 and 40-49 are proportionally represented.
39. For positions of trust offences, offenders aged 18-20, 50-59, 60-69, and 70+ appear to be underrepresented with respect to the general population. Offenders aged 21-24 appear to be highly overrepresented as they comprise 35.7% of those convicted and 28.9% of those sentenced but only 6.5% of the general population. Offenders aged 30-39 or 40-49 are also overrepresented but to a lesser degree. However, it’s important to caveat these figures because the sample size was again relatively small so inference must be interpreted with caution. We may also see an increase in younger positions of trust offenders due to the changes to the provisions.
Gender Reassignment
40. The numbers available for this protected characteristic are too small for a reasonable assessment to be made on disproportionality in regard to both criminal damage to monuments and positions of trust offences.
Religion or belief
Memorial Damage
41. We are unable to identify, by this protected characteristic, those affected by both criminal damage to monuments.
Positions of Trust
42. We do not expect any particular religion to be disproportionately affected over another by the inclusion of religious settings to the positions of trust offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. These provisions will add religious settings to many others already included within the definitions of positions of trust; they do not particularly focus on or single out religious or faith groups. Our provisions are designed to protect young people under the age of 18 from those who would use their position in certain faith and religious settings to sexually manipulate and abuse them. Our provisions do not target one area of faith over another but reflect the unique position of power these roles hold, and we have been guided by the very real concerns of those who work within those sensitive fields. The positions of trust provisions do not prevent or prohibit the following of or involvement in any particular religion or faith.
43. We acknowledge that these provisions have the potential to adversely affect the sexual freedom, albeit in very limited circumstances, of those teaching in a religious setting, but we feel that on evidence and experiences shared by those who work in faith settings that such an extension of the criminal law is necessary to protect the most vulnerable. Alongside advice received during the Ministry of Justice’s internal review of the law, there were calls for such reforms from the independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and the APPG on Safeguarding in Faith Settings. It was suggested that the centrality of trusting relationships within religious communities, and the high level of trust accorded to faith leaders, means that children and young people may be particularly vulnerable in these settings compared with others. We believe that the limited impact that our provisions may have on those who coach, teach, train, supervise or instruct in religion is justifiable in achieving the aim of protecting the young who fall under their power or trust of such people from sexual abuse, manipulation and exploitation.
44. We recognise that there may be a need in future to extend the positions of trust offences further and our provisions will allow such reforms via secondary legislation should it prove necessary to do so.
Disability
45. We are unable to identify by this protected characteristic, those affected by both criminal damage to monuments and positions of trust offences. However, it remains important to continue to make reasonable adjustments for disabled offenders, defendants, victims, witnesses and courts and tribunals users to make sure appropriate support is given to enable rehabilitation and fair access to justice, as well as support for our staff.
Pregnancy/Maternity
46. We are unable to identify by this protected characteristic, those affected by both criminal damage to monuments and positions of trust offences. We will continue to ensure the provision of Mother and Baby Units in prisons, and support within community settings.
Sexual Orientation
47. In 2019, 97.3% of prisoners in England and Wales who declared a sexual orientation reported that they were heterosexual, slightly higher than the UK general population where 94.6% identified as heterosexual in 2018. However, we are unable to identify by this protected characteristic, those affected by both criminal damage to monuments and positions of trust offences.
Marriage/Civil Partnership
48. We are unable to identify by this protected characteristic, those affected by both criminal damage to monuments and positions of trust offences.
Victims
49. Changes to vandalism to memorials will affect the victims, and the families of the victims, of these offenders in particular, and the public in general, in that they may feel protected for longer from the risks presented by the offender and will be more likely to consider that the punishment better reflects the harm they have suffered. It will also increase the confidence of victims and the public in the administration of justice.
50. We are not able to identify by protected characteristics the victims of the specific cohort of offenders affected by this change.
51. The positions of trust changes will also affect the victims, and the families of the victims, of these offenders in particular, and the public in general, in that they will know that sports coaches and religious leaders can now be charged with sexual offences committed by adults in these additional positions of trust. It will also increase the confidence of victims and the public in the administration of justice.
52. The change will limit the freedoms of individuals aged 16 to 17 to consent to engage in consensual sexual activities with those aged 18 or over, within the extended “positions of trust” relationships. Such actions could also potentially make them victims of a crime. We believe this limited impact results from a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting young and vulnerable victims from serious criminal behaviour.
53. With respect to victims, this change only affects a small cohort limited by age (16-17 years of age). However, we do not believe the change amounts to discrimination (direct or indirect) towards this protected characteristic. We are not able to identify by other protected characteristics besides age the victims of the specific cohort of offenders affected by this change.
Equality considerations applicable to all policies
Eliminating Unlawful Discrimination
Direct Discrimination
54. Direct discrimination occurs when a policy would result in people being treated less favourably because of a protected characteristic. Our assessment is that these changes are not directly discriminatory within the meaning of the 2010 Act, as they apply in the same way to all individuals regardless of their protected characteristics. No offender will be treated less favourably in relation to any protected characteristic.
Indirect Discrimination
55. Indirect discrimination occurs when a policy applies equally to all individuals but would put those sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage compared to those who do not. Our initial assessment is that these changes are not unlawfully indirectly discriminatory within the meaning of the Equality Act as explained below.
56. By virtue of the overrepresentation of these groups in the cohorts of offender to which these policies apply, taking the policies together we acknowledge that any adverse impacts arising from these changes will be more likely to affect male offenders.
57. Males are substantially overrepresented in the criminal or malicious damage and positions of trust offender groups in relation to the general population.
58. In general, non-White ethnic groups appear to be over-represented at most stages throughout the CJS, compared with the White ethnic group, and among non-White ethnic groups, Black and Mixed individuals are often the most over-represented. This trend is only partially reflected for the abuse of positions of trust offences, and we were unable to identify whether this trend is also manifested in the criminal or malicious damage offence due to unavailable data.
59. We do not, however, consider that these overrepresentations will likely result in any particular disadvantage for offenders with protected characteristics. Our assessment is that the changes described by these policy proposals are a proportionate means of achieving our aim of ensuring that courts are able to sentence appropriately at every level for this particular type of offending. Overall, therefore, we do not consider that these policy changes are likely to result in any unlawful indirect discrimination.
60. HMPPS already has measures in place which will help offenders who will spend longer in prison. Longer periods in custody can be used to work with offenders on strengthening relationships with families or significant others. Following the 2017 publication of Lord Farmer’s review into the importance of family ties for male prisoners, £5.5 million has been devolved to Governors of all public-sector prisons to deliver family engagement services. The in-cell Telephony Project has also equipped 30 public-sector prisons with the technology that allows people in custody to make telephone calls from their cell, to allow more frequent family contact for offenders serving longer sentences. A further 21 public-sector prisons are in the process of being fitted with in-cell telephony.
61. In 2018, HMPPS issued a special Model of Operational Delivery for older prisoners, which was developed in recognition of the sizeable and growing proportion of older prisoners in the prison estate. It addresses how services and interventions may be tailored to enable all older prisoners to maintain their physical and mental wellbeing, and their independence. In addition, prisons are required to agree and sign off a Memorandum of Understanding with their local authority partners, which sets out how services will work locally together. As of August 2020, approximately 90% are in place, either signed or in draft waiting for signature. This work has ensured that HMPPS and local authorities have engaged to ensure capability and capacity to deliver social care as defined in the Care Act 2014 at a local level.
Discrimination arising from disability and duty to make reasonable adjustments
62. In so far as these changes extend to disabled offenders, we believe that the policies are proportionate, having regard to their aims. It would not be reasonable to make an adjustment for disabled offenders so that they are out of scope of the proposals, but it remains important to make reasonable adjustments for disabled offenders to ensure appropriate support is given. We do not consider that any adjustments are required for disabled people over and above the ones already in place in prisons.
Harassment and victimisation
63. We do not consider there to be a risk of harassment or victimisation within the meaning of the Equality Act as a result of these changes.
Advancing Equality of Opportunity
64. We have had regard to this aspect of the equality duty but do not consider that these changes will affect the advancement of equality of opportunity in the case of either criminal or malicious damage or positions of trust offences, although there will be positive impacts for victims which may affect certain groups more.
Fostering Good Relations
65. Our assessment is that these changes are unlikely to impact on fostering good relations between groups with different protected characteristics.
Harassment and Victimisation
66. We do not consider there to be a risk of harassment or victimisation as a result of these proposals.
Monitoring and Evaluation
67. We will continue to pay due regard to the Public-Sector Equality Duty as the proposals are implemented and will consider the most effective ways of monitoring equalities.
Continuing Analysis
68. The equality duty is an ongoing duty and we will draw on any data that could provide evidence on the impact of these changes to inform any future review of how the policies works for all affected offenders, including those with protected characteristics who are currently overrepresented in affected groups.
Annex A
The following data has been extracted from the Criminal Justice Statistics Outcomes by Offence Tool.
The Ministry of Justice publishes data on sentencing through quarterly CJS statistics publications. The following tables indicate the proportion of offenders convicted or sentenced to custody for criminal or malicious damage offences (by the protected characteristics described). This group is compared to the general adult population of England and Wales.
Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are considered when those data are used.
Data are given on a principal offence basis. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. Data are given on a principal disposal basis – i.e. reporting the most severe sentence for the principal offence.
To assess any differences in representation, care must be taken when comparing conviction and sentencing data for abuse of positions of trust or criminal or malicious damage offences with the general population. It may be more appropriate to compare the conviction ratio (the rate that prosecutions end in conviction) and custody rate (the proportion of all sentences that were sentenced to immediate custody) for the desired protected characteristic with the overall conviction ratio for the offence. The proportions of those convicted and sentenced to custody should be compared with the population proportion.
In the following tables, the composition of the population by sex and age are from the 2019 Mid-year Population Estimates published by the Office for National Statistics [footnote 10]. The composition of the population by ethnicity is from the 2011 United Kingdom Census [footnote 11].
The figures for the offences are extracted from the “Outcomes by Offence” tool published yearly by the MoJ and in this instance 2019 offence data is used. It was not possible to breakdown this data by ethnicity so it has not been possible to compare offender statistics with the general population statistics from the census to measure the equalities impact by the protected characteristic of ethnicity.
Table 1: Conviction ratio for Criminal or Malicious Damage Offence
OVERALL CONVICTION RATIO % 86.7%
| Sex | Conviction Ratio | Proportion of Convicted | Population Proportions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 87.2% | 89.4% | 49.40% |
| Female | 83.0% | 10.6% | 50.60% |
| Total Convicted, where sex is known | 14,910 |
| Age Range | Conviction Ratio | Proportion of Convicted | Population Proportions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18-20 | 86.9% | 9.4% | 4.4% |
| 21-24 | 88.3% | 14.8% | 6.5% |
| 25-29 | 88.1% | 21.6% | 8.6% |
| 30-39 | 87.2% | 32.3% | 16.9% |
| 40-49 | 84.6% | 14.3% | 16.2% |
| 50-59 | 84.0% | 6.1% | 17.1% |
| 60-69 | 73.8% | 1.1% | 13.5% |
| 70+ | 63.6% | 0.3% | 16.7% |
| Total Convicted, where age is known | 15,094 |
| Ethnicity | Conviction Ratio | Proportion of Convicted | Population Proportions |
|---|---|---|---|
| White | N/A | N/A | 86.0% |
| Black | N/A | N/A | 3.3% |
| Asian | N/A | N/A | 6.8% |
| Mixed | N/A | N/A | 2.2% |
| Chinese and Other | N/A | N/A | 1.7% |
| Total Convicted, where ethnicity is known | N/A |
Table 2: Custody Rate for Criminal or Malicious Damage Offence
OVERALL CUSTODY RATE % 5.9%
| Sex | Custody Rate | Proportion of Sentenced | Population Proportions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 6.2% | 94.6% | 49.40% |
| Female | 3.0% | 5.4% | 50.60% |
| Total sentenced to custody, where sex is known | 874 |
| Age Range | Custody Rate | Proportion of Sentenced | Population Proportions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18-20 | 2.9% | 4.6% | 4.4% |
| 21-24 | 4.8% | 12.3% | 6.5% |
| 25-29 | 6.1% | 22.6% | 8.6% |
| 30-39 | 7.1% | 39.3% | 16.9% |
| 40-49 | 6.1% | 15.0% | 16.2% |
| 50-59 | 4.9% | 5.2% | 17.1% |
| 60-69 | 4.1% | 0.8% | 13.5% |
| 70+ | 4.1% | 0.2% | 16.7% |
| Total sentenced to custody, where age is known | 888 |
| Ethnicity | Custody Rate | Proportion of Sentenced | Population Proportions |
|---|---|---|---|
| White | N/A | N/A | 86.0% |
| Black | N/A | N/A | 3.3% |
| Asian | N/A | N/A | 6.8% |
| Mixed | N/A | N/A | 2.2% |
| Chinese and Other | N/A | N/A | 1.7% |
| Total sentenced to custody, where ethnicity is known | N/A |
Table 3: Conviction ratio for Abuse of Position of Trust
OVERALL CONVICTION RATIO % 71.4%
| Sex | Conviction Ratio | Proportion of Convicted | Population Proportions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 95.5% | 86.2% | 49.40% |
| Female | 94.9% | 13.8% | 50.60% |
| Total Convicted, where sex is known | 268 |
| Age Range | Conviction Ratio | Proportion of Convicted | Population Proportions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18-20 | 33% | 1.4% | 4.4% |
| 21-24 | 89.3% | 35.7% | 6.5% |
| 25-29 | 100% | 7.1% | 8.6% |
| 30-39 | 94.1% | 22.9% | 16.9% |
| 40-49 | 100% | 18.6% | 16.2% |
| 50-59 | 100% | 10.0% | 17.1% |
| 60-69 | 75% | 4.3% | 13.5% |
| 70+ | 0% | 0% | 16.7% |
| Total Convicted, where age is known | 70 |
| Ethnicity | Conviction Ratio | Proportion of Convicted | Population Proportions |
|---|---|---|---|
| White | 99.0% | 87.1% | 86.0% |
| Black | 100% | 5.0% | 3.3% |
| Asian | 76% | 5.4% | 6.8% |
| Mixed | 100% | 0.8% | 2.2% |
| Chinese and Other | 100% | 1.7% | 1.7% |
| Total Convicted, where ethnicity is known | 239 |
Table 4: Custody Rate for Abuse of Position of Trust
OVERALL CUSTODY RATE % 59.6%
| Sex | Custody Rate | Proportion of Sentenced | Population Proportions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 61.7% | 90.0% | 49.40% |
| Female | 45.9% | 10.0% | 50.60% |
| Total sentenced to custody, where sex is known | 170 |
| Age Range | Custody Rate | Proportion of Sentenced | Population Proportions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18-20 | 50% | 2.6% | 4.4% |
| 21-24 | 37.9% | 28.9% | 6.5% |
| 25-29 | 20% | 2.6% | 8.6% |
| 30-39 | 52.9% | 23.7% | 16.9% |
| 40-49 | 76.9% | 26.3% | 16.2% |
| 50-59 | 83.3% | 13.2% | 17.1% |
| 60-69 | 33.3% | 2.6% | 13.5% |
| 70+ | 0% | 0% | 16.7% |
| Total sentenced to custody, where age is known | 38 |
| Ethnicity | Custody Rate | Proportion of Sentenced | Population Proportions |
|---|---|---|---|
| White | 59.1% | 85.5% | 86.0% |
| Black | 69.2% | 5.9% | 3.3% |
| Asian | 69.2% | 5.9% | 6.8% |
| Mixed | 100% | 1.3% | 2.2% |
| Chinese and Other | 50% | 1.3% | 1.7% |
| Total sentenced to custody, where ethnicity is known | 152 |
-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/pdfs/ukpga_20100015_en.pdf ↩
-
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-december-2019 ↩
-
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/849200/statistics-on-race-and-the-cjs-2018.pdf ↩
-
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/women-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2017 ↩
-
The Race and Women publications are published biennially (alternating with one another) every November, although equalities data is available every year from the CJSQ. ↩
-
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hm-prison-and-probation-service-offender-equalities-annual-report-2018-to-2019 ↩
-
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/thenatureofviolentcrimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2018 ↩
-
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/2011census/2013-05-16 ↩
-
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hm-prison-and-probation-service-offender-equalities-annual-report-2018-to-2019 ↩
-
Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/august2019 ↩
-
Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/2011census/2013-05-16 ↩