Statistics on women and the criminal justice system 2013
Source: data.gov.uk (2018-05-25)

Women and the Criminal Justice System. Statistics produced by a range of agencies relating to the experience of women within the criminal justice system.

Statistics on Women and the 
Criminal Justice System 2013  
A Ministry of Justice publication under Section 95 of the 
Criminal Justice Act 1991  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
November 2014 
 
1

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2
 

Contents 
Acknowledgments....................................................................................................... 4 
List of tables and figures in the publication ................................................................. 5 
Executive summary..................................................................................................... 9 
Chapter 1: Introduction.............................................................................................. 18 
Chapter 2: Key trends in the criminal justice system ................................................ 22 
Chapter 3: Victims..................................................................................................... 24 
Personal crime ...................................................................................................... 24 
Violent crime ......................................................................................................... 25 
Child victimisation ................................................................................................. 28 
Intimate violence  ................................................................................................. 29 
Homicide ............................................................................................................... 32 
Chapter 4: Police Activity .......................................................................................... 34 
Arrests................................................................................................................... 34 
Penalty Notices for Disorder ................................................................................. 35 
Cautions................................................................................................................ 36 
Chapter 5: Defendants.............................................................................................. 39 
Proceedings and Convictions................................................................................ 42 
Remands............................................................................................................... 44 
Pre-sentence reports............................................................................................. 45 
Sentencing ............................................................................................................ 47 
Chapter 6: Offender Characteristics.......................................................................... 51 
Offending Histories................................................................................................ 51 
Mitigating and Aggravating Factors....................................................................... 54 
Employment, income and benefits before and after conviction / caution / release 
from prison ............................................................................................................ 60 
Chapter 7: Offence Analysis ..................................................................................... 63 
Theft offences – shoplifting ................................................................................... 63 
Selected violence against the person offences..................................................... 65 
Drug Offences....................................................................................................... 67 
Benefit fraud.......................................................................................................... 69 
Chapter 8: Offender Management ............................................................................ 72 
Offenders in Custody ............................................................................................ 72 
Probation............................................................................................................... 80 
Proven re-offending............................................................................................... 83 
Chapter 9: Practitioners ............................................................................................ 86 
 
3
 

Acknowledgments 
 
Acknowledgement is made of the contributions from Amber Weeks, Abigail Shaw 
and Ashley Singh. We are also grateful for the input received from colleagues in the 
Ministry of Justice, the Home Office, the Office for National Statistics and agencies 
across the Criminal Justice System.  
The authors would like to express their thanks to members of the Women’s 
Independent Advisory Group for their advice during the preparation of this report. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4
 

List of tables and figures in the publication 
 
Table A.01:  
Overview of Women and the CJS: Proportion of individuals in the CJS 
by sex compared to general population 
Figure A.02:  Proportion of individuals who have experienced crime in the last year, 
2013/14 
Figure A.03:  PNDs and cautions issued, by sex, 2009 to 2013 
Figure A.04: 
Indictable and summary (non-motoring and motoring) prosecutions by 
sex, 2009 to 2013 
Figure A.05:  Sentencing outcomes (percentages of all offenders sentenced) for 
indictable offences at all courts, 2013 
Figure A.06:  Average custodial sentence length for indictable offences, by sex, 
2013 
Figure A.07:  Application of mitigating and aggravating factors to Theft, Dishonesty 
and Fraud sentences at the Crown Court, 2013 
Figure A.08:  Female/male proportions of prison releases, adjudications and 
incidents, 2013 (dotted line shows female prison population as a 
proportion of the total)  
Figure A.09:  Proportion of male and female staff in CJS agencies in the most 
recent period  
Figure 3.01:  Proportion of adults aged 16 and over who reported being a victim of 
personal crime, by sex, 2008/09 to 2013/14 CSEW 
Figure 3.02:  Proportion of adults aged 16 and over who reported being a victim of 
personal crime, by age and sex, 2013/14 CSEW 
Figure 3.03:  Proportion of adults who reported being a victim of violence by type 
and sex, 2013/14 CSEW 
Figure 3.04:  Proportion of adults who reported being a victim of violence by sex 
and age, 2013/14 CSEW 
Figure 3.05:  Proportion of adults who reported being a victim of a) domestic 
violence and b) stranger violence by sex and age, 2013/14 CSEW 
Table 3.06:  
Factors associated and not associated with being a victim of violence 
for men and women, 2011/12 CSEW 
Figure 3.07:  Percentage of children aged 10-15 experiencing victimisation, by sex 
and crime type, 2013/14, CSEW 
Figure 3.08:  Percentage of adults aged 16 to 59 who experienced intimate violence 
in the previous 12 months, by sex and headline category, 2012/13 
CSEW 
Figure 3.09:  Percentage of adults aged 16 to 59 who experienced intimate violence 
in the last year, by headline category for a) men and b) women, 
2004/05 to 2012/13 CSEW 
Figure 3.10:  Percentage of adults aged 16 to 59 who experienced domestic abuse 
in the last year by sex, age and marital status, 2012/13 CSEW 
 
5
Figure 3.11:  Method of killing of homicide victims by sex, 2012/13 

Figure 3.12:  Relationship of victim to principal suspect for victims aged under 16 by 
sex of victim, 2012/13 
Figure 3.13:  Relationship of victim to principal suspect for victims aged 16 or over 
by sex of victim, 2012/13 
Figure 4.01:  Number of arrests by sex and adult/juvenile, 2008/09 to 2012/13 
Figure 4.02:  Proportion of arrests by offence type and sex, 2012/13 
Figure 4.03:  Penalty Notices for Disorder – Offences committed, by sex, 2013 
Figure 4.04:  Number of cautions issued, by sex and offence type, 2003 to 2013 
Figure 4.05:  Number of cautions issued, by sex and adult/juvenile, 2003 to 2013 
Figure 5.01:  The journey of males and females through the criminal justice system, 
2013 
Figure 5.02:  Prosecutions as a percentage of total prosecutions and out of court 
disposals, by gender, 2003, 2008, 2011 and 2013 
Figure 5.03:  Prosecutions, Cautions and PNDs given to males and females, by age 
group, 2013 
Figure 5.04:  Females and males proceeded against or given a PND or caution for 
an indictable offence, 2013 
Figure 5.05: 
(a) Number of defendants proceeded against at the magistrates’ court, 
by sex, for the offence of TV licence evasion and (b) the proportion 
this offence represents of all summary non-motoring proceedings, 
2003 to 2013 
Figure 5.06: 
(a) Female and (b) male defendants proceeded against at 
magistrates’ courts, by offence type, 2003 to 2013.  
Figure 5.07:  Conviction ratio, by sex, 2003 to 2013 
Figure 5.08:  Outcomes of defendants remanded in custody at the Crown Court, by 
sex, 2013 
Figure 5.09:  Defendants remanded on bail at the Crown Court by outcome and 
sex, 2013 
Figure 5.10:  The level of concordance between sentence recommendations and 
outcomes for (a) female and (b) male offenders, by sentence 
outcome, 2009 and 2013 
Figure 5.11:  Sentencing outcomes (percentages of all offenders sentenced) for 
indictable offences at all courts, 2013 
 
Figure 5.12:  Custody rate for indictable and summary offences, by gender, 2003 to 
2013  
Figure 5.13:  The average sentence length for offenders sentenced to custody, by 
gender, 2003 to 2013  
Figure 6.01:  (a) Female and (b) male cautioning and sentencing occasions, split by 
number of previous sanctions, 2003 to 2013 
Figure 6.02:  Offenders sentenced for an indictable offence who have no previous 
sanctions against them, by proportion who received each type of 
sentence, by gender, 2013 
 
6
Figure 6.03:  Theft, dishonesty and fraud – the most common mitigating factors, 
2013 (by decreasing proportion of females with each factor) 

Figure 6.04:  Theft, dishonesty and fraud – the most common aggravating factors, 
2013 (by decreasing proportion of females with each factor) 
Figure 6.05:  Theft, dishonesty and fraud - custody rate for the three most prevalent 
mitigating and aggravating factors for females, 2013 (dotted line 
shows overall custody rate for each gender) 
Figure 6.06:  Assault and public order offences – The most common factors (for 
females) indicating lower culpability, lesser harm and reduced 
seriousness, by gender, 2013 
Figure 6.07:  Assault and public order offences – The most common factors (for 
females) indicating higher culpability, greater harm or increased 
seriousness, by gender, 2013 
Figure 6.08:  Assault and public order offences – custody rate for the three most 
prevalent factors ticked for females for higher culpability/increased 
seriousness/greater harm and for lower culpability/reduced 
seriousness/lesser harm, 2013 (dotted line shows overall custody rate 
for each gender) 
Figure 6.09: 
Median adjusted P14 income (to take into account earnings inflation) 
of offenders released from prison or convicted/cautioned in 2003/04, 
by gender, 2004/05 to 2012/13  
Figure 7.01: 
Proportion of offenders given a PND, caution or conviction for various 
forms of shoplifting offence, 2009 to 2013 
Figure 7.02:  Sentencing outcomes for shoplifting, by gender, 2013 
Figure 7.03:  Convictions for the most common violent offences as a proportion of 
all violent offences, by gender, 2013  
Figure 7.04:  Offenders sentenced for ABH, by sentence outcome, 2013 
Figure 7.05:  Offenders sentenced for cruelty to or neglect of a child, by sentence 
outcome, 2013 
Figure 7.06:  The number of offenders given a PND, caution or convicted at all 
courts for drug offences: (a) female offenders, (b) male offenders, 
2003 to 2013 
Figure 7.07:  Total (a) female and (b) male offenders sentenced, offenders 
sentenced to custody and the custody rate for drug offences, 2003 to 
2013  
Figure 7.08:  Custody rate for selected drug offences by gender, 2013 
Figure 7.09:  Number of convictions for selected benefit fraud offences, by gender, 
2013 
Figure 7.10:  Sentencing outcomes for benefit fraud offences: (a) Dishonest 
representation, (b) False representation, by gender, 2013 
Figure 8.01:  Prison population, by gender, at 30th June, 2004 to 2014 
Figure 8.02:  Proportion of foreign national prisoners by gender, 2004 to 2014 
 
7
Figure 8.03:  Proportion of indeterminate sentences of all sentenced prisoners by 
gender at 30th June, 2004 to 2014 

Figure 8.04:  Sentence length profile of determinate sentences, by gender, 30 June 
2014 
Figure 8.05:  Offence group profile of prison population under an immediate 
custodial sentence by gender, 30 June 2014 
Figure 8.06:  (a) Female and (b) male accredited prison programme starts and 
completions, 2009/10 to 2013/14 
Figure 8.07:  (a) Female and (b) male prison programme starts for General 
Offending, Substance Misuse and Violence programmes, 2009/10 to 
2013/14 
Figure 8.08:  Rate of proven adjudications per 100 prison population, 2004 to 2013 
Figure 8.09:  Rate of (a) assaults and (b) assaults on staff per 1,000 prisoners by 
gender, 2003 to 2013 
Figure 8.10:  Frequency of self-harm incidents by gender, 2013 
Figure 8.11:  The rate of (a) individuals self-harming and (b) self-harm incidents per 
1,000 prisoners, 2004 to 2013 
Figure 8.12:  Offenders supervised by the Probation Service at end of period, under 
court orders by gender, December 2003 to December 2013 
Figure 8.13:  Proportion of offenders commencing supervision by number of 
requirements and order, by gender, 2013 
Figure 8.14:  Specified activity requirements as a proportion of all requirements 
applied to offenders commencing community orders or SSOs, 2007 to 
2013 
Figure 8.15:  Accredited programme starts and completions in the community for (a) 
females and (b) males, 2009/10 to 2013/14 
Figure 8.16:  Re-offending rates by gender and adult/juvenile, 2002 to 2012 
Figure 8.17:  Proportion of offenders who re-offended within each index offence 
group, by gender, 2012 
Figure 9.01: 
Proportion of male and female staff across each CJS agency  
Figure 9.02:  Proportion of male and female senior staff across each CJS agency 
 
8
 

Executive summary 
 
This report provides information about females and males in the Criminal Justice 
System (CJS) in England and Wales for the most recent years that data have been 
available. Where possible, five or ten year trends have been provided.  
 
Table A.01 below shows the estimated proportion of each gender in the resident 
population aged ten and over1 based on the population estimates from the 2011 
Census, and the gender breakdown of those at different points of the CJS process. 
 
Table A.01: Overview of Women and the CJS: Proportion of individuals in the 
CJS by gender compared to general population 
 
Data 
Time period 
Female 
Male 
Total 
Population aged 10 and over  
Mid-2013 
51% 
49% 
49,994,815 
Arrests 
2012/13 
15% 
85% 
1,072,068 
Out of Court Disposals 
 
 
 
 
       Penalty Notices for Disorder 
2013 
23% 
77% 
84,268 
       Cautions 
2013 
23% 
77% 
180,286 
Court Proceedings 
2013 
25% 
75% 
1,347,278 
Convictions 
2013 
25% 
75% 
1,112,148 
Sentenced to Immediate 
custody 
2013 
8% 
92% 
92,295 
First time offenders 
2013 
27% 
73% 
164,588 
Offenders with previous 
cautions or convictions 
2013 
14% 
86% 
545,976 
Prison population 
30 June 2014 
5% 
95% 
85,509 
Under supervision in the 
community 
31 Dec 2013 
15% 
85% 
110,950 
 
Victims of crime 
 
The 2013/14 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW)2 showed that around one 
in 20 people aged 16 and over reported being a victim of personal crime in the last 
12 months. This has been lower for women in each year that the survey has been 
conducted, but has decreased for men over the past five years and for the last two 
years there has been no statistically significant difference between the rates for 
women and men. 
                                                 
1 Ten is the age of criminal responsibility 
 
9
2 Full results from the Crime Survey for England and Wales 2013/14 can be found on the Office for 
National Statistics website at this link: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-
ending-march-2014/stb-crime-stats.html  

Figure A.02: Proportion of individuals who have experienced crime in the last 
year, 2013/143 
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Personal crime
Violent crime
All violence
Crime against 
the person
Any domestic 
abuse
Adults aged 16 and over
Children aged 10-15
Adults aged     
16-59
CSEW
Self-completion 
module
% victims
Females
Males
 
 
A higher proportion of men reported being a victim of violence than women. However 
the type of perpetrator varied by gender with men more likely to be a victim of 
violence by an acquaintance or stranger and women more likely to be a victim of 
domestic violence.  
 
Women were more likely than men to have experienced intimate violence4 since the 
age of 16, with women twice as likely as men to have reported being a victim of non-
sexual partner abuse (the most commonly experienced type of intimate violence) and 
seven times as likely as men to have reported being a victim of sexual assault. 
Women were also more likely than men to have experienced intimate violence in the 
previous 12 months.  
 
Women have accounted for about 3 in 10 homicide victims in each year since 
2003/04, with over half having been killed by a partner or ex-partner. In contrast, men 
were more often killed by a friend or acquaintance. 
 
Police Activity 
 
The number of arrests fell by around half for males and around 60 per cent for 
females between 2008/09 and 2012/13; broadly reflecting trends in police recorded 
crime, which saw a 21% reduction over the same period.5 Violence against the 
person and theft and handling were consistently the two offence groups with the 
highest number of arrests for both males and females; together making up around 
half of male arrests and two thirds of female arrests. 
 
                                                 
3 Figures for domestic abuse cover the 2012/13 period. 
4 Intimate violence is the CSEW collective term used to describe domestic violence, sexual assault and 
stalking (this includes domestic abuse, partner abuse (non-sexual), family abuse (non-sexual), 
emotional or financial abuse, threats, force, sexual assault, rape, assault by penetration and stalking). 
 
10
5 Comparisons with recorded crime are limited here to trends over time. As arrests relate to persons and 
recorded crime to offences, it is not appropriate to compare actual numbers. Data are available in the 
reference table ‘Recorded crime data at police force area level from 2002/03’ from ONS (2014). Crime in 
England and Wales, period ending June 2014. Available: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-
reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-353718  

Penalty Notices for Disorder (PNDs) fell slightly faster for males than for females 
between 2009 and 2013, with males consistently making up around three quarters of 
PNDs. The offences for which males and females were given PNDs varied, with 
around half of PNDs issued to females being for retail theft of under £100 in value, 
while this made up only around a fifth of PNDs issued to males. An increased use of 
PNDs for possession of cannabis was seen during the five year period, with an 
increase by nearly half for females and a fifth for males from 2009 to 2013, although 
this fell slightly in the most recent year. 
 
Figure A.03: PNDs and cautions issued, by gender, 2009 to 2013 
0
50
100
150
200
250
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
PNDs
Cautions
PNDs / cautions issued (000s)
Females
Males
 
Although the use of cautions fell between 2009 and 2013, they fell faster for juveniles 
(aged under 18) for both genders. Summary offences (less serious) made up around 
half of cautions issued to both males and females, although cautions issued for 
indictable offences were more likely for juvenile males than for juvenile females..  
 
Defendants 
 
Prosecutions, and subsequently convictions, fell for both genders between 2009 and 
2013; although the decline was sharper for males. Summary offence prosecutions 
(both motoring and non-motoring) saw a larger drop for males whereas indictable 
offence prosecutions saw a larger drop for females.  
 
11
 

Figure A.04: Indictable and summary (non-motoring and motoring) 
prosecutions by gender, 2009 to 2013 
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Indictable
Summary (non-motoring)
Summary (motoring)
Prosecutions (000s)
Females
Males
 
 
The conviction ratio6 increased for both male and female defendants between 2003 
and 2008 and then remained broadly stable. It has been consistently slightly higher 
for females than males over the past decade.  
 
For defendants appearing at the Crown Court in 2013, males were nearly twice as 
likely as females to be remanded in custody. Of those remanded in custody, males 
were more likely to go on to receive an immediate custodial sentence. 
 
For both male and female offenders in the five years from 2009 to 2013, fines were 
the most common sentence at court. Males were more likely to be given an 
immediate custodial sentence than females. The different disposal profiles of males 
and females can be largely attributed to the different types of offences they commit, 
with females more likely to commit the less serious, summary offences. 
 
In 2013, custody was the most common sentence for males for indictable offences, 
whilst community sentences were the most common sentence outcome for females. 
Of those sentenced to custody for indictable offences, the average custodial 
sentence lengths were lower for female offenders compared with male offenders for 
all offence groups.  
 
 
                                                 
 
12
6 The conviction ratio is calculated by dividing the number of defendants convicted by the number of 
defendants prosecuted in the same period. 

Figure A.05: Sentencing outcomes (percentages of all offenders sentenced) for 
indictable offences at all courts, 2013 
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Immediate 
custody
Suspended 
sentence
Community 
sentence
Fine
Absolute 
discharge
Conditional 
discharge
Otherwise 
dealt with
Proportion sentenced
Male 
Female 
 
 
Figure A.06: Average custodial sentence length for indictable offences, by 
gender, 2013 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Public order offences
Theft Offences
Misc. crimes against society
Possession of weapons
Fraud offences
Violence against the person
Criminal damage and arson
Drug offences
Robbery
Sexual offences
Females
Males
 
Offending histories 
 
Female offenders were less likely than male offenders to have any previous cautions 
or convictions throughout the ten years from 2003 to 2013, with a third of females 
and only a fifth of males being first-time offenders in 2013.  
 
13
 

 
Mitigating and aggravating factors 
 
In 2013, for the two offence categories of ‘theft, dishonesty and fraud’, and ‘assault 
and public order offences’, female offenders were generally more likely than males to 
have mitigating factors applied to their sentence and males were generally more 
likely than females to have aggravating factors applied.  
 
For female offenders, the predominant mitigating factors that were included (within 
the offence groups analysed) included the appearance of genuine remorse, the age 
of the offender, the offender having caring responsibilities and a lack of previous 
relevant convictions. Male offenders were less likely to have any of these taken into 
account, especially in relation to having caring responsibilities. 
 
The aggravating factors that appeared for male offenders included the presence of 
previous relevant convictions, the location of the offence, being a member of a group 
or gang and evidence of some degree of pre-planning or pre-meditation. All of these 
were less likely to appear for females, although threatened or actual use of weapons 
(or equivalent) appeared for a similar proportion of both genders. 
 
Figure A.07: Application of mitigating and aggravating factors to Theft, 
Dishonesty and Fraud sentences at the Crown Court, 20137 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
No mitigating
factors stated
At least one
mitigating factor
No aggravating
factors stated
At least one
aggravating factor
Females
Males
 
 
The differing use of mitigating and aggravating factors by gender contributed to 
differing custody rates, with males being far more likely to be given an immediate 
custodial sentence than females, although this can also partly be explained by the 
specific offences committed by males and females. 
 
Shoplifting 
 
In 2013, shoplifting made up the majority of theft offences for both male and female 
offenders, although the proportion was higher for females. Shoplifting made up nearly 
                                                 
 
14
7 Data taken from the Crown Court Sentencing Survey 2013. Note that the survey is voluntary for judges 
and other sentencers, so figures are based on respondents to the survey and not all Crown Court cases. 

half of all indictable convictions for females, and just under a quarter of all indictable 
convictions for males. The two most common disposals for both genders were 
conditional discharges and community sentences (of those sentenced at court). 
Males were far more likely to get an immediate custodial sentence. 
 
Employment, income and benefits before and after conviction/caution/release from 
prison 
 
In 2010/11, female offenders were more likely than male offenders to be on benefits 
before and after their caution, conviction or prison sentence, whereas in the general 
population, males were more likely than females to be on benefits. P45 employment 
levels were very similar for both male and female offenders at the time of 
conviction/caution or release from custody, but males had a higher average income 
than females. 
 
Prisons 
 
The male prison population has increased over the last ten years, whilst the female 
prison population has decreased, with females making up just under one in 20 
prisoners on 30 June 2014. 
 
Of those in prison under sentence, a larger proportion of the male prison population 
were serving an indeterminate sentence compared with the female prison population, 
and male prisoners were generally serving longer sentences than females.  
 
In 2013, the rate of adjudications was higher for female prisoners than it was for 
males, although adjudications have been falling over the past decade for both 
genders. Per 1,000 prisoners in 2013, males committed more assaults and more 
serious assaults than females, although females committed more assaults on staff. 
 
Although in 2013 female prisoners remained far more likely to self-harm than males, 
figures for self-harming have decreased in recent years for females, whilst they have 
increased for males, and self-harm incidents for males tend to be more severe, with a 
larger proportion resulting in hospital attendance. 
 
15
 

Figure A.08: Female/male proportions of accredited programme starts, 
Releases on Temporary Licence (ROTL), adjudications and incidents, 2013 
(dotted line shows female prison population as a proportion of the total)  
Probation 
 
In 2013, women accounted for around 16% of those under supervision as part of a 
community order or Suspended Sentence Order (SSO), and this proportion has 
remained stable since 2007. Women generally had fewer requirements to comply 
with than men, and had a shorter average order length. Women were also more likely 
than men to successfully complete both Community Orders and SSOs, and also to 
have them terminated early for good progress. 
 
Re-offending 
 
In the most recent period (2012), males (both adults and juveniles) re-offended at a 
higher rate than females (27.7% compared to 18.5%), and this has not changed over 
the past ten years. 
 
Index offences related to theft and robbery saw the highest rates of re-offending for 
adults of both genders. For some index offence groups, the proportion of adult males 
who re-offended was more than double the corresponding proportion of adult 
females, including violence against the person, fraud offences and summary 
motoring offences. 
 
Staff and practitioners 
 
In the most recent period, the representation of women varied substantially across 
the Criminal Justice System agencies ranging from as high as 72% in the Probation 
Service and two thirds of staff at the MoJ, to a quarter of staff in the Police Service 
and the Judiciary in the most recent period. The proportion that women accounted for 
in most of these agencies/organisations has increased over the last five years, 
 
16

although women are still considerably less well-represented in senior positions than 
men. 
 
Figure A.09: Proportion of female and male staff in CJS agencies in the most 
recent period (by decreasing proportion of females) 
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Judiciary     
(Apr-14)
Police Officer 
(Mar-14)
NOMS Staff     
(Mar-14)
Magistracy     
(Mar-14)
CPS        
(Dec-13)
MOJ Staff     
(Mar-14)
Probation Service 
(Dec-13)
Females
Males
 
17

Chapter 1: Introduction 
 
Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 states that: 
 
‘The Secretary of State shall in each year publish such information as he considers 
expedient for the purpose... of facilitating the performance of those engaged in the 
administration of justice to avoid discriminating against any persons on the ground of 
race or sex or any other improper ground...’ 
 
Documents specifically fulfilling this requirement have been published since 1992, in 
the form of statistical information. This report, as with previous editions, brings 
together statistical information on the representation of females as victims, suspects, 
defendants and offenders within the Criminal Justice System. It also provides details 
of employees within the criminal justice agencies.  
 
The publication aims to help practitioners, policy makers, academics and members of 
the public understand trends in the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales, 
and how these vary between males and females, and over time. The identification of 
differences should not be equated with discrimination, however, as there are many 
reasons why apparent disparities may exist. 
 
Other government papers containing information on women in the justice system 
have also been published recently, including the National Offender Management 
Service (NOMS) Equalities report8 (published in November 2014) and several 
Ministry of Justice research reports outlining a range of findings from a survey of 
prisoners (undertaken as part of a survey of adult prisoners sentenced to between 
one month and four years in prison in England and Wales in 2005 and 2006). In 
March 2014, the Home Office also published an updated version of the violence 
against women and girls action plan (first published in 2011).  
 
This is the third biennial compendium of Statistics on Women and the Criminal 
Justice System and will be followed next year by its sister publication Statistics on 
Race and the Criminal Justice System. 
 
Changes to the report 
 
Those familiar with previous editions of this publication will find several additions and 
changes in this most recent report. The additions are based on suggestions from 
members of the Women’s Independent Advisory Group and reflect the needs of 
users of the report. New sections include analysis of the differences between males 
and females in the application of mitigating and aggravating factors from the Crown 
Court Sentencing Survey, analysis of the income, employment and benefit status of 
offenders before and after conviction/caution or release from prison9, figures on 
releases on temporary licence (ROTLs), sections on accredited programmes (in 
prisons and in the community) and analyses of specific offences for which there 
appear to be particularly high numbers for females, such as benefit fraud, shoplifting, 
certain violent offences and drug offences. Additionally, a short paper on the use of 
immediate custody as a sentence for breaching a community penalty has been 
published alongside this report. 
                                                 
8 The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) Equalities report, 2013/14 can be found here: 
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/announcements/noms-annual-offender-equalities-report-2013-to-
2014.  
 
18
9 Analysis is taken from the data share that the Ministry of Justice holds with the Department for Work 
and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. 

 
The overall style and composition of the report have also been improved, with more 
graphs to easily demonstrate trends and comparisons. Tables that are published 
elsewhere are linked instead of republished, and commentary has been condensed 
in places to reduce repetition, replaced instead with more probing analysis in areas 
where trends or differences stand out. The aim of these changes has been to 
improve the overall narrative of the publication so that readers gain a clearer picture 
of women and the criminal justice system. 
 
We welcome feedback on the changes made to the report. If you have any 
comments on this edition or suggestions for future editions, please direct these to 
xxx@xxx.xx. 
 
Implementation of changes to offence classifications 
 
In July 2013, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) re-designed the classifications 
used to present police recorded crime statistics, following recommendations from the 
National Statistician’s review of Crime Statistics in England and Wales in June 2011. 
The changes to classifications were implemented in the ONS statistical bulletin Crime 
in England and Wales, year ending March 2013, published in July 2013, alongside a 
methodological note10 providing more detail on the changes and their impact on time-
series for key measures.  
 
These changes affect certain sections of this report, including all data on cautions, 
prosecutions, convictions, sentencing, offending histories and re-offending. No 
change has been made to the coverage of offences, and most changes are 
presentational, with some offences moving between classifications or being 
separated out of existing groupings. Data on arrests and prisoners still follow the old 
groupings. 
 
Transforming Rehabilitation 
 
The Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 makes provisions about the release and 
supervision after release, of offenders; the extension period for extended sentence 
prisoners and also makes provisions in relation to community orders and suspended 
sentence orders. 
 
The new legislation has changed the law so that all offenders released from short 
prison sentences will receive 12 months of supervision in the community. Under the 
reforms, all offenders (male and female) who are serving a custodial sentence of less 
than 12 months, will have an assessment of risks and needs soon after they are 
taken into custody which will be used for their resettlement plan.  The information 
from the assessment will be used to draw up a bespoke plan for the individual 
offender for their sentence in custody and then afterwards in the community, based 
on their particular set of needs.  
 
Section 10 of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 contains a specific requirement on 
the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that any contracts for the provision of 
probation services meet the particular needs of female offenders. Bidders will need to 
ensure that, in making arrangements for the supervision and rehabilitation of 
                                                 
 
19
10 ‘Presentational changes to National Statistics on police recorded crime in England and Wales’, Office 
for National Statistics Methodology Note, 18 July 2013: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-
quality/specific/crime-statistics-methodology/presentational-changes-on-police-recorded-crime-in-
england-and-wales.pdf 

offenders, they have complied with the public sector duty under section 149 of the 
Equality Act 2010 which relates to female offenders. 
 
For offenders under supervision in the community, specific contractual requirements 
will be put in place in respect of the management of female offenders, so that, where 
practicable, female offenders should be offered the option of: 
 a female Offender Manager;  
 being interviewed in a female-only environment; and  
 not being placed in an all-male work environment as part of an Unpaid 
Work or Attendance Centre requirement. 
 
The changes made under the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 do not affect any of 
the data provided within this report, as this report covers data no later than the end of 
June 2014 and most of the provisions of the Act have been scheduled to commence 
after this date. However, some data will be available by the time of the publication of 
the next “Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System” in 2016, and so this 
will be covered in more detail then. 
 
Supplementary tables and guide 
 
Supplementary Excel tables also accompany the chapters, providing additional data 
where the figures have not previously been published (or not published in that form). 
Data are presented in terms of calendar and financial years, reflecting the reporting 
cycles and data collection of the agencies contributing information for this publication. 
For example, data on arrests are presented in financial years, while data from courts, 
prison and probation are presented in calendar years. Five or ten year trends have 
been presented wherever possible. Where changes to data systems or data quality 
issues do not allow for this, trends have been presented for the longest periods 
possible.  
 
A technical document titled A Guide to Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice 
System11 is available alongside this report, which provides users with information on 
the concepts and terminology used within the report, as well as information about 
data sources, data quality and references. 
 
Occasional papers 
 
In addition to this report, the Ministry of Justice is looking at the possibility of 
introducing occasional papers to explore in more depth those areas where 
differences have been identified by gender. The Ministry of Justice would welcome 
feedback on whether these papers would be valuable and on any topics of interest to 
users of this report (email: xxx@xxx.xx). 
 
Revisions 
 
Data included in this report have been extracted from large administrative data 
systems generated by the courts, police forces and other agencies. Such statistics 
are by their nature subject to occasional error and uncertainty. Initial estimates are 
often systematically amended to reflect more accurate and complete information 
provided by data suppliers at some later point. As a consequence, care must be 
                                                 
 
20
11 The technical document A Guide to Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System can be 
found here: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/announcements/women-and-the-criminal-justice-system-
2013 

 
21
taken when using the statistics presented in this report to ensure the inevitable 
limitations of these data are taken into account. 

Chapter 2: Key trends in the criminal justice system 
 
This section provides a brief introduction to the criminal justice system as a whole 
and presents recent trends, so that readers understand the context of the differences 
between males and females described in later chapters. 
 
Overall trends 
 
The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) has shown that there were an 
estimated 7.3 million incidents of crime against households and resident adults (aged 
16 and over) in England and Wales for the year ending March 2014. This represents 
a 14% decrease compared with the previous year’s survey, and is the lowest 
estimate since the survey began in 198112. 
In contrast, police recorded crime shows no overall change from the previous year, 
with 3.7 million offences recorded in the year ending March 2014. Prior to this, police 
recorded crime figures have shown year on year reductions since 2002/03.  
The total number people and companies formally dealt with by the criminal justice 
system in England and Wales has been declining since 2007, and is now at a record 
low level (period 1970 to 2013), with 1.76 million individuals dealt with in 2013.  
 
The use of out of court disposals has decreased by more than half since 2007. Within 
courts, prosecutions have declined, with an almost year-on-year decrease since 
2004. The reduction has been much sharper for juveniles, reflecting both a 
decreasing number of juvenile offenders reprimanded or issued with a warning and 
the decreasing numbers of juveniles found guilty in all courts. For example, juveniles 
accounted for only 3% of defendants prosecuted in 2013 compared to 7% in 2007. 
 
The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 
introduced a wide range of reforms to the justice system as well as delivering 
structural reforms to the administration of legal aid. It abolished Indeterminate 
sentences for Public Protection (IPPs) and replaced them with new Extended 
Determinate Sentences (EDS), and it legislated that adult offenders would receive 
mandatory life sentences for a second serious sexual or violent offence. Some new 
offences were brought in and youth cautions replaced reprimands and final warnings. 
The effects of these changes can be seen throughout the data in this report. 
 
The prison population grew rapidly between 1993 and 2008, at an average of 4% a 
year. This rapid increase was driven by increases in the number of people sentenced 
to immediate custody from 1993 to 2002, increases in the average custodial 
sentence length and increased use of indeterminate sentences; increases in the 
number of offenders recalled to prison following breaches of their licence conditions, 
along with increases in the average length of time these offenders spent in prison 
once recalled.  
 
The increase in the prison population slowed considerably from the summer of 2008, 
in part due to the introduction of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, 
which changed sentencing and offender management in ways which helped to 
reduce growth in the prison population. This flatter trend continued until the public 
disorder seen in UK cities from 6 to 9 August 2011 which had an immediate but 
temporary impact on the prison population. During 2012 and into 2013, the prison 
                                                 
 
22
12 The CSEW was formerly known as the British Crime Survey (BCS), as the survey previously included 
households in Scotland. 

population began to fall due to a decreasing remand population and a continued 
decline in the number of under 18s in custody. The falling remand population during 
2012 reflected falling volumes going through the courts plus the introduction of the 
LASPO Act, mentioned above, in December 2012. This Act restricted the use of 
remand for offenders who would be unlikely to receive a custodial sentence. 
 
The probation caseload (court orders and pre and post release supervision) 
increased by 39% between 2000 and 2008, and then fell year on year, reaching 
219,588 at the end of 2013. The rise between 2000 and 2008 was driven by the 
introduction of new court orders, in particular the Suspended Sentence Order (SSO) 
in 2005 (under the Criminal Justice Act 2003); and an increase in the pre- and post-
release supervision caseload due to continued growth in numbers serving custodial 
sentences of 12 months or more who require supervision on licence on release from 
custody and offenders spending longer periods on licence after release from custody 
under CJA 2003.  
 
Differences between males and females 
 
Males have consistently made up the vast majority of defendants and offenders in 
the criminal justice system, with females making up only 23 per cent of those given 
out of court disposals, 18 per cent of arrests, 25 per cent of convictions and five per 
cent of the prison population in 2013. Although the number of offenders formally dealt 
with has been falling for both genders, it has been falling faster for females, meaning 
that these proportions are at their lowest in the past decade.  
 
The types of offences committed by females tend to be different to those committed 
by males and so differences in disposals between them can be at least partly 
explained by the different crimes with which they are associated. Most female 
defendants go through magistrates’ courts, as the offences they commit are 
predominantly low-level summary offences and therefore not serious enough to be 
tried at the Crown Court. 
 
The main indictable offence group that female convictions tend to fall into is theft, 
accounting for nearly a quarter of female indictable convictions in 2013. Theft also 
stands out as the largest offence group for females within out of court disposals. A 
more detailed look at what drives these figures can be found in the Offence Analysis 
section, and an in-depth look at the mitigating and aggravating factors associated 
with theft offences is given in the Offender Characteristics chapter.  
 
 
23
 

Chapter 3: Victims 
 
This chapter explores the nature, extent and risks of victimisation as reported in the 
2013/14 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW)13, based on the sex of the 
victim. It also includes police recorded crime statistics on homicide (murder, 
manslaughter or infanticide) by the sex of the victim from the ONS publication, Focus 
on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, 2012/1314. 
 
Personal crime15 
 
The 2013/14 Crime Survey for England and Wales showed a statistically significant 
decrease in the proportion of both women and men reporting to be a victim of 
personal crime in 2013/14 compared with 2011/12, but not with 2012/13. A greater 
proportion of men reported being a victim of personal crime compared with women, 
however in the last couple of years this difference has not been statistically 
significant. 
 
Figure 3.01: Proportion of adults aged 16 and over who reported being a victim 
of personal crime, by sex, 2008/09 to 2013/14 CSEW 
7.0%
6.4%
6.4%
6.3%
5.5%
5.0%
5.6%
4.9%
5.3%
5.4%
5.0%
4.7%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
% victim of personal crime
Men
Women
By Age  
 
The proportion of adults reporting being a victim of personal crime decreases with 
age. In 2013/14, 11.4% of men and 11.3% of women aged 16-24 reported being a 
victim of personal crime compared with 0.8% of men and 1.5% of women aged 75+. 
 
                                                 
13 The Crime Survey for England and Wales 2013/14, published by the Office for National Statistics, can 
be seen here for more information: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-
march-2014/stb-crime-stats.html.  
14 The Focus on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, 2012/13 publication, published by the Office for 
National Statistics, can be viewed here: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-
violent-crime-and-sexual-offences--2012-13/rpt---about-this-release.html.  
15 Personal crimes relate to all crimes against the individual and only relate to the respondent’s own 
personal experience (not that of other people in the household). An example of a personal crime would 
be an assault. 
 
24

In most age groups a greater proportion of men reported being a victim of personal 
crime compared with women. However these differences are not statistically 
significant. 
 
Figure 3.02: Proportion of adults aged 16 and over who reported being a victim 
of personal crime, by age and sex, 2013/14 CSEW 
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
All
16-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
Age
% victim of personal crime
Women
Men
Violent crime 
 
In 2013/14 a higher proportion of men (2.3%) reported being a victim of violence than 
women (1.4%), and within violence, this was true for both wounding and common 
assault without injury16. 
 
In 2013/14 men were more likely than women to be a victim of violence by an 
acquaintance or stranger, but women were more likely than men to be a victim of 
domestic violence. 
 
Figure 3.03: Proportion of adults who reported being a victim of violence by 
type and sex, 2013/14 CSEW 
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
All violence
Domestic
Acquaintance
Stranger
% victim of violence
Women
Men
 
                                                 
16 The apparent difference in the common assault with injury rates for men and women was not 
statistically significant. 
 
25

 
The figures below show the different age profiles for men and women victims of 
different types of violence. Overall men have a higher risk of being a victim of 
violence for all age groups (although the differences are not always statistically 
significant) and for both men and women the risk of being a victim of violence 
decreases with age. Men and women aged 16-24 have the highest risk of being a 
victim of violence (6.4% and 3.6% respectively) whilst men and women aged 75+ 
have the lowest risk (0.1%).   
 
Figure 3.04: Proportion of adults who reported being a victim of violence by 
sex and age, 2013/14 CSEW 
 
4%
2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
All
16-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
% victim of violence
Age
Women
Men
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
However the profile looks different for different types of violence. For example, for 
most age groups women had a higher risk than men of being a victim of domestic 
violence (except for those aged 55-64). The difference was statistically significant for 
the 16-24 and the 25-34 age groups. 
 
Figure 3.05: Proportion of adults who reported being a victim of a) domestic 
violence and b) stranger violence by sex and age, 2013/14 CSEW 
a) 
  
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
All
16-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
% victim of domestic violence
Age
Women
Men
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
26

b) 
 
2%
1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
All
16-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
% victim of stranger violence
Age
Women
Men
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Risk factors associated with being a victim of violence 
 
Logistic regression analysis of 2013/14 CSEW was conducted by the Office for 
National Statistics to identify the risk factors independently associated with being a 
victim of violence for men and women. 
 
The analysis found that the characteristics most associated with being a victim of 
violence for both men and women were age, disability and marital status. Individuals 
aged 16-24 were more at risk of being a victim of violence compared with older 
adults, individuals with a longstanding illness or disability were more at risk than 
those without, and individuals who were single, separated or divorced were more at 
risk than individuals who were married or cohabiting. 
 
Housing tenure was also a risk factor for men; men living in socially rented 
accommodation17 were more at risk than those living in accommodation that they 
owned, as was accommodation type with men living in detached houses more at risk 
than those in semi-detached or terraced houses. 
 
For women, the number of evening visits to a pub/bar in the last month was also a 
risk factor. Women who went less than once a week or more than once a week were 
more at risk of being a victim of violence than those who had no visits. 
 
                                                 
17 There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of being a victim of violence between those 
in privately rented accommodation and owners. 
 
27

Table 3.06: Factors associated and not associated with being a victim of 
violence for men and women, 2011/12 CSEW 
  
Risk Factor 
Variable 
Women 
Men 
Age 
 
 
Long-standing illness or disability 
 
 
Respondent's marital status 
 
 
Respondent's employment status 
  
 
Highest qualification 
 
 
Total household income 
 
 
Housing tenure 
 
 
Accommodation type 
  
 
Area type 
  
 
Hours out of home on an average weekday 
  
  
Number of evening visits to pub/bar in last 
month 
 
  
Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales 2013/14 
Notes: 
(1) 
indicates a significant association between the variable and violent victimisation. 
(2) See supplementary tables S2.07 and S2.08 of the CSEW 2013/14 report for full variable breakdown by 
gender. 
(3) See Section 7 of the CSEW 2013/14 User Guide to Crime Statistics for England and Wales for definitions of 
personal, household and area characteristics (www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-
quality/specific/crime-statistics-methodology/user-guide-to-crime-statistics.pdf). 
 
Child victimisation 
 
In 2013/14, a higher proportion of boys aged 10-15 were victims of personal crime 
than girls. The proportion of boys aged 10-12 who experienced personal violent 
crime was nearly double the proportion for girls of the same age.  
 
 
28
Figure 3.07: Percentage of children aged 10-15 experiencing victimisation, by 
sex and crime type, 2013/14, CSEW 
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
All
Aged 10-12
Aged 13-15
All
Aged 10-12
Aged 13-15
Crime against the
person
All violence
Girls
Boys
 

Intimate violence 18 
 
This section provides findings from the 2012/13 CSEW self-completion module on 
intimate violence, which is asked of individuals aged 16 to 59. Intimate violence is a 
collective term used here to refer to a number of different forms of physical and non-
physical abuse consisting of partner abuse, family abuse, sexual assault and 
stalking. The term reflects the intimate nature either of the victim-offender 
relationship or the abuse itself. As in previous years, in contrast to findings on overall 
violent crime victimisation, women were more likely than men to have experienced 
intimate violence across all the headline types of abuse asked about. 
 
Intimate violence experienced since the age of 16 
 
In 2012/13, 30.0% of women and 16.3% of men reported that they had experienced 
any type of domestic abuse since the age of 16. The most frequently experienced 
type of intimate violence was partner abuse (non sexual), but women were twice as 
likely as men (23.8% compared with 11.1% of men) to report having experienced 
such abuse. Prevalence of family abuse (non sexual) was similar for women and 
men (7.5% and 6.1% respectively), whilst the greatest difference between the 
genders was for sexual assault. Women were seven times more likely to have 
reported having experienced such abuse. 
 
Intimate violence experienced in the last year 
 
Consistent with a higher proportion of women being a victim of domestic abuse since 
the age of 16, in 2012/13 a higher proportion of women reported having experienced 
domestic abuse in the previous 12 months (7.1% compared with 4.4% of men). In the 
last year, partner abuse (non-sexual) and stalking were the most common of the 
separate types of intimate violence. 
 
Figure 3.08: Percentage of adults aged 16 to 59 who experienced intimate 
violence in the previous 12 months, by sex and headline category, 2012/13 
CSEW 
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
Any domestic abuse
Any partner abuse
Any family abuse
Partner abuse - non-sexual
Family abuse - non-sexual
Any sexual assault (including attempts)
Stalking
% victim of intimate violence
Women
Men
 
                                                 
 
29
18 This section provides a summary of the main findings of Chapter 4 – Intimate Personal Violence and 
Partner Abuse in Focus on violent crime and sexual offences published by the ONS in February 2014. 
The original chapter can be found in www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-
violent-crime-and-sexual-offences--2012-13/rpt---chapter-4---intimate-personal-violence-and-partner-
abuse.html. Figures for 2013/14 are due to be published in February 2015.    

Trends since 2004/05 
 
Overall the prevalence of domestic abuse experienced in 2012/13 was the lowest 
since 2004/05 when questions on this subject were first introduced to the survey, 
although the latest figure is not significantly different from the last 4 years. Since 
2004/05 all headline measures have seen a statistically significant decline except for 
family abuse (non-sexual) for men and sexual assault for men. 
 
Figure 3.09: Percentage of adults aged 16 to 59 who experienced intimate 
violence in the last year, by headline category for a) men and b) women, 
2004/05 to 2012/13 CSEW* 
a)  
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
% victim of intimate violence
Partner abuse - non-sexual
Family abuse - non-sexual
Sexual assault (any assault including attempts)
Stalking
 
 
b)  
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
% victim of intimate violence
Partner abuse - non-sexual
Family abuse - non-sexual
Sexual assault (any assault including attempts)
Stalking
 
* The stalking time series excludes a data point for 2007/08 due to comparable questions on 
stalking not being included that year.  
 
30
 

By age and marital status 
 
For both men and women, the prevalence of intimate violence was higher for 
younger age groups. Women who were separated had the highest prevalence of any 
domestic abuse in the last year (21.3%), compared with all other groups by marital 
status, followed by men who were separated (18.0%). The prevalence for separated 
women is not significantly higher than for separated men. Married men and women 
had the lowest prevalence of domestic abuse (2.3% and 2.7% respectively) 
compared with all other groups by marital status. For sexual assault, single women 
were more likely to be victims (4.3%) compared with those who were married, 
cohabitating or divorced. 
 
Figure 3.10: Percentage of adults aged 16 to 59 who experienced domestic 
abuse in the last year by sex, age and marital status, 2012/13 CSEW 
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
All adults
16-19
20-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-59
Married
Cohabiting
Single
Separated
Divorced
Widowed
Age group
Marital status
Men
Women
 
Reporting partner abuse 
 
In the CSEW, victims of partner abuse in the last 12 months were also asked who 
they had spoken to about the abuse they experienced. The majority of victims told 
someone about the abuse they suffered, with women (83%) being more likely to tell 
someone than men (71%). Both men (61%) and women (76%) were more likely to 
tell someone they knew personally about the abuse. A third of all victims told 
someone in an official position about the abuse (22% men and 38% women), and 
women were much more likely to tell the police than men (27% and 10% 
respectively). 
 
Other government reports that have recently been published on domestic abuse and 
sexual offences and may also be of interest include the Crown Prosecution Service 
statistics on violence against women and girls19, which include charging decisions 
and prosecution outcomes in cases brought to the CPS. 
 
                                                 
19 See www.cps.gov.uk/data/violence_against_women/vawg_2013_14_report.html  
 
31

Homicide 
 
In 2012/1320 there were 551 homicide victims in England and Wales recorded by the 
police; 380 male victims and 171 female victims. Females have accounted for about 
3 in 10 homicide victims in each year since 2003/04, although the number of 
homicide victims has fallen over the period. The rate of homicide victims per million in 
the population varies across both age and sex. Whilst rates fluctuate, the highest rate 
of homicide is for children under 1 year and for this age group the rates are broadly 
similar for males and females. Homicide rates are also higher than average for adults 
aged 16-29 and aged 30-49 and for both these age groups the rate of homicide in the 
male population is more than double (in some years more than triple) the rate of the 
female population. 
 
Method of killing 
 
There were differences in the method of killing male and female victims. In 2012/13 a 
sharp instrument was the most common method of killing for both male and female 
victims, but for male victims the second most common method was hitting and 
kicking etc., whilst for female victims it was strangulation or asphyxiation. This is in 
line with trends seen in previous years. 
 
Figure 3.11: Method of killing of homicide victims by sex, 2012/13 
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Sharp instrument
Blunt instrument
Hitting, kicking, etc.
Strangulation, asphyxiation
Shooting
Explosion
Burning
Drowning
Poison or drugs
Motor vehicle
Other
Not known
Male victims
Female victims
Relationship to principal suspect 21 
 
For homicide victims under 16 years of age the profile of the relationship between 
victim and principal suspect is similar for males and females. In 2012/13 about two 
thirds of homicide victims aged under 16 were killed by someone they were 
acquainted with and in the majority of these cases by a parent or step-parent. 
                                                 
20 2013/14 data is due to be published by ONS in February 2015. 
 
32
21 Where there are multiple suspects in a homicide case they are categorised in the Homicide Index as 
either the principal suspect or a secondary suspect. There is only ever one principal suspect per 
homicide victim. If there is any conviction information available then the suspect with the longest 
sentence or most severe conviction is determined to be the principal suspect. In the absence of any 
court outcome, the principal suspect is either the person considered by the police to be the most 
involved in the homicide or the person with the closest relationship to the victim. 

However for homicide victims over 16 years of age the relationship between the 
victim and principal suspect differed for male and female victims. In 2012/13 about 
three quarters of female victims were killed by someone they knew and over half of 
female victims were killed by a partner or ex-partner. In comparison about half of 
male victims were killed by someone they knew and in the majority of those cases, 
by a friend or acquaintance. 
 
Figure 3.12: Relationship of victim to principal suspect for victims aged under 
16 by sex of victim, 2012/13 
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Son or daughter
Other family/ friend/acquaintance
Total acquainted
Stranger
No suspect
Total not acquainted
Victim 
acquainted with 
suspect
Victim not 
acquainted with 
suspect
% with relatonship to suspect
Female
Male
 
 
Figure 3.13: Relationship of victim to principal suspect for victims aged 16 or 
over by sex of victim, 2012/13 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Son or daughter
Parent
Partner/ex-partner
Other family  
Friend/ acquaintance
Total acquainted
Stranger
No suspect
Total not acquainted
Victim acquainted with 
suspect
Victim not 
acquainted 
with suspect
% with relationship to suspect
Female
Male
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
33

Chapter 4: Police Activity 
 
This chapter examines individuals who come into contact with the police, either 
through being arrested, being given a penalty notice for disorder (PND) or being 
given a caution. Headline arrests data have previously been published in the Home 
Office report Police Powers and Procedures England and Wales 2012/1322, and are 
now presented here with a gender breakdown. Figures for PNDs and cautions have 
been taken from the Ministry of Justice publication Criminal Justice Statistics 201323. 
  
Arrests 
 
The total number of arrests decreased by around a quarter between 2008/09 and 
2012/13 (from 1.46 million to 1.07 million), with a decrease of around a quarter for 
males and a third for females. The greater decline in the number of arrests of 
females meant that females accounted for a decreasing proportion of all arrests over 
the five year period, with a year on year decrease from 16.9% in 2008/09 to 15.1% in 
2012/13. 
 
Age groups  
 
Both adults and juveniles saw decreases in the number of arrests, although the fall 
was sharper for juveniles, with a fall of around half for males and over 60 per cent for 
females. 
 
Figure 4.01: Number of arrests by sex and adult/juvenile, 2008/09 to 2012/13 
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Number of arrests (in 000s)
Male juveniles
Male adults
Female juveniles
Female adults
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
22 Police Powers and Procedures, England and Wales, 2012 to 2013: 
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-powers-and-procedures-england-and-wales-2012-to-2013.  
 
34
23 Criminal Justice Statistics 2013: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-statistics-quarterly-
december-2013.  

Offence groups 
 
Violence against the person and theft and handling were consistently the two offence 
groups with the highest number of arrests for both females and males; making up 
around two thirds of female arrests and half of male arrests. 
 
The types of offences that both females and males were arrested for remained 
broadly similar over the five year period and were similarly consistent across all age 
groups. 
 
Figure 4.02: Proportion of arrests within each offence group, by sex, 2012/13 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Other offences
Drug offences
Criminal damage
Fraud & forgery
Theft & handling
Burglary
Robbery
Sexual offences
Violence against the person
Proportion
Males
Females
 
 
Penalty Notices for Disorder 
 
Penalty Notices for Disorder (PNDs) are commonly known as ‘on the spot fines’ - a 
fixed penalty of £60 for lower tier offence or £90 for higher tier offence (raised from 
£50 and £80 respectively from 1 July 2013 onwards).  
 
They were designed to tackle low-level, anti-social and nuisance offending for 
offenders aged 18 and over (prior to 8th April 2013, PNDs were also available for 16 
and 17 year olds) and are issued for a range of less serious offences. Until the 
introduction of PNDs in 2004 and formal warnings for possession of cannabis in 
2005, the only out of court disposal available to police was a caution. 
 
In 2013, just over three quarters of PNDs were issued to males (65,282 compared to 
18,986 to females).This ratio has remained broadly consistent although the number 
of PNDs issued decreased by around half between 2009 and 2013, with a 49% 
decrease for females and a 55% decrease for males. 
 
Offences 
 
 
35
Higher tier offences cover, for example, theft and being drunk and disorderly, and 
lower tier offences include offences such as trespassing on a railway and 
consumption of alcohol in a designated public place. In 2013, the majority of PNDs 

issued to both genders were for higher tier offences (98% for females; 96% for 
males), which hasn’t changed over the past four years.  
 
Drunk and disorderly was the most common offence for which a PND was issued to 
males in 2013, making up around a third of PNDs issued to males. In comparison, 
this offence made up a quarter of PNDs issued to females. The most common PND 
for females was retail theft (shoplifting) of under £100 in value, making up around half 
of all PNDs issued to females compared to around a fifth for males. This has 
remained largely unchanged over the five year period from 2009 to 2013, although 
some of the legislation regarding PNDs has been slightly revised. For example, the 
maximum value of items stolen through shoplifting for which a person can be given a 
PND is now £100, whereas prior to July 2009 it was £200 and from July 2009 
onwards PNDs could only be used for criminal damage up to a value of £300.  
 
Over the five year period from 2009 to 2013, decreases were seen for most offences, 
with the notable exception of possession of cannabis, which was only introduced as a 
PND in January 2009. This offence accounted for an increasing share of all PNDs 
given to both males and females over the past five years. In 2013, possession of 
cannabis was the second most common offence for which males were issued PNDs 
and the fourth most common for females, accounting for 20% and 4% of all PNDs 
given respectively. 
 
The offence of causing harassment, alarm or distress saw a sharp fall for both 
genders from 2009 to 2013, with a decrease of just over 70 per cent for both males 
and females. In 2009, this was the most common offence for which males were 
issued a PND, but by 2013 this was only the fourth most common offence. It has 
consistently been the third most common offence for females. 
 
Figure 4.03: Penalty Notices for Disorder – Offences committed, by sex, 2013 
Cautions 
 
A caution can be given when there is sufficient evidence to prosecute an offender for 
an offence for which they admit guilt, but where it is decided that a caution would be 
a more appropriate solution. This could either be because it is not in the public 
interest to prosecute the offender (leading to a simple caution) or where it would be in 
 
36

the public interest to prosecute, but the offending behaviour would be better dealt 
with through compliance with a conditional caution. 
 
In 2013, just under a quarter of those issued with a caution were female, consistent 
with the previous five years. 
 
Just under half of the cautions issued in 2013 were for summary offences and this 
proportion was similar for both genders. Although this proportion has been consistent 
for male offenders for the five year period to 2013, this has only recently become the 
case for females. Summary offences accounted for only a third of female cautions 
ten years ago, but as cautions for indictable offences saw a sharper fall than 
summary cautions for females in recent years, the split is now much closer to 50/50. 
 
Figure 4.04: Number of cautions issued, by sex and offence type, 2003 to 2013 
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Number of cautions (in thousands)
Males - Indictable
Males - Summary
Females - Indictable
Females - Summary
 
 
The total number of cautions issued fell by over a third from 2009 to 2013. The 
sharpest decrease was seen for indictable offences, which fell by over half for 
females and over a third for males. This large decrease for females was driven by a 
59 per cent decrease in cautions issued for theft offences, the offence group which 
makes up over half of all cautions for indictable offences issued to females. 
 
The decline in the use of both PNDs and cautions coincided with the replacement in 
April 2008 of a target to increase offences brought to justice, with one placing more 
emphasis on bringing serious crime to justice. The latter target was subsequently 
removed in May 2010. 
 
In November 2013, changes were made to the guidance on the use of simple 
cautions for indictable-only offences, so that only the Crown Prosecution Service can 
now make the decision on whether an indictable-only offence is suitable to be dealt 
with by way of a simple caution, and simple cautions should not be given for certain 
specified triable either-way offences, unless a senior police officer believes there are 
exceptional circumstances.24 
 
                                                 
 
37
24 Details of the changes made to simple cautions in November 2013 can be found here: 
www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/oocd/adult-simple-caution-guidance-oocd.pdf 

Age groups 
 
Simple and conditional cautions became available to those aged 10 to 17 years in 
England and Wales on 8th April 2013, replacing reprimands and warnings. These had 
only been available to adults prior to this, and youth conditional cautions were only 
available for 16 and 17 year olds in five pilot areas from on 26 January 2010).  
 
For both juveniles and adults, theft offences were the most common indictable 
offence group for which females were cautioned in 2013. For males, theft offences 
were the most common for juveniles, but drug offences were the most common for 
adults. 
 
In general, summary offences accounted for only 38% of cautions issued to juvenile 
males, in contrast to adult males and all females, who all had an almost 50/50 split 
between summary and indictable offences.  
 
From 2009 to 2013, the number of cautions issued decreased for both adults and 
juveniles, although the fall for juveniles was much steeper, with a decrease of 62% 
for juvenile males and three quarters for juvenile females, compared to just under 
30% for adults of both genders. The use of out of court disposals will be looked at 
alongside prosecutions in the next chapter.    
 
Figure 4.05: Number of cautions issued, by sex and adult/juvenile, 2003 to 2013 
 
38
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Number of cautions (in thousands)
Male juveniles
Male adults
Female juveniles
Female adults  

Chapter 5: Defendants 
 
Figure 5.01: The journey of males and females through the criminal justice 
system, 2013 
Females
Males
Females
Males
23%
77%
23%
77%
Females
Males
Females
Males
Females
Males
25%
75%
25%
75%
25%
75%
Sentence 
Outcome
Fine
Community 
sentence
Suspended 
sentence
Custody
Other
Females 
(283,025)
79%
7%
3%
3%
8%
Males 
(827,170)
62%
12%
5%
10%
10%
Females
2.5%
Males
10.3%
Females
8.9
Males
16.2
Females
Males
Females
Males
27%
73%
10%
90%
Custody rate
Average custodial 
sentence length 
(months)
PREVIOUS CRIMINAL HISTORIES
First time entrants 
(164,587)
15 or more previous 
convictions / cautions 
(144,813)
OUT OF COURT DISPOSALS
PNDS (84,268)
Cautions (180,286)
COURT PROCEEDINGS AND SENTENCING
Proceedings (1,347,278)
Convictions (1,132,148)
Sentencing (1,110,195)
 
 
 
This chapter explores outcomes for defendants in the Criminal Justice System 
(CJS)25 drawing on data from the MoJ publication Criminal Justice Statistics 201326.  
 
If there is sufficient evidence against the defendant and none of the out of court 
disposals are appropriate and it is in the public interest to prosecute, the police will 
formally charge the suspect. The law then requires the defendant to be brought 
before a magistrates’ court as soon as possible. The defendant can be summoned to 
appear in court or remanded on bail or custody. 
                                                 
25 A person can be dealt with by the Criminal Justice System on more than one occasion in a single year 
and therefore can be counted more than once. 
 
39
26 The Criminal Justice Statistics 2013 annual publication can be viewed here: 
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-statistics-quarterly-december-2013.  

Individuals formally dealt with by the Criminal Justice System27 
 
This section compares disposals that are issued out of court (PNDs and cautions) 
with court proceedings.  
 
Over the past five years females have accounted for around a quarter of all 
prosecutions and out of court disposals28 (OOCDs). 
  
Since 2009, both OOCDs and prosecutions have decreased, but the latter at a 
slower rate meaning the proportion of prosecutions has increased over the past five 
years, with the increase greater for female defendants.  
 
Figure 5.02: Prosecutions as a percentage of total prosecutions and out of 
court disposals, by sex, 2003, 2008, 2011 and 2013 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Male 
Female
Male 
Female
Male 
Female
Male 
Female
2003
2008
2011
2013
Proportion
Female PNDs
Female Cautions
Female Prosecutions
Male PNDs
Male Cautions
Male Prosecutions
 
* PNDs were introduced in 2004 and so 2003 shows only cautions and prosecutions. 
 
The increasing proportion of females dealt with in court can be largely attributed to 
the increasing number of females proceeded against for TV licence evasion. In the 
latest year, this offence accounted for 36% of all prosecutions for female defendants, 
but only 5% for male defendants. This offence is not dealt with by the police, 
meaning out of court disposals are not available and each individual will be 
proceeded against at the magistrates’ court. 
 
In each year from 2009 to 2013, more females than males were convicted for this 
offence. If enforcement officers suspect a household of watching or recording live TV 
without a valid licence and are not able to contact anyone at the property by letter or 
by telephone, they visit the household in person. Whoever is contacted at the 
household and provides their details is the person that is prosecuted for the offence. 
 
Whilst in 2013, a larger proportion of adult females were formally dealt with by a 
prosecution compared with adult males, for juveniles the reverse was true.  
                                                 
27 This chapter looks at persons only and excludes those where gender is not stated. Other defendants 
such as companies and public bodies are also excluded. 
 
40
28 Cannabis warnings will not be considered when looking at out of court disposals because they are not 
recorded by sex. 

 
Figure 5.03: Prosecutions, cautions and PNDs given to males and females, by 
age group, 2013 
  
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Females
Males
Females
Males
Juveniles
Adults
Male PNDs
Male Cautions
Male Prosecutions
FemalePNDs
Female Cautions
Female Prosecutions
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indictable offences 
 
In the five years from 2009, a greater proportion of males were dealt with in court for 
an indictable offence compared with females, increasing from over 2 out of 3 males 
in 2009 to 3 out of 4 males in 2013. In 2009, just under half of female defendants 
dealt with for an indictable offence were dealt with in court, increasing to just under 3 
out of 5 female defendants in 2013. This indicates that females were (proportionally) 
more likely to be dealt with out of court for indictable offences compared with males. 
 
Figure 5.04: Females and males proceeded against or given a PND or caution 
for an indictable offence, 2013 
Proceeded 
against
Caution
PND
Female Indictable offences
PND
Caution
Proceeded 
against
Male Indictable offences
 
41

 
Proceedings and Convictions 
 
Prosecutions for both male and female defendants decreased between 2009 and 
2013, although the decrease has been greater for male offenders than for female 
offenders, at 20% and 9% respectively. This reflects a continuing decline in the 
number of prosecutions for male defendants over the past ten years, while for female 
defendants the decline has only been evident since 2009. 
 
Between 2003 and 2009 the increasing numbers of female defendants proceeded 
against for summary non-motoring offences offset the fall across both summary 
motoring and indictable offences over the same period. This however has stabilised 
over the past five years leading to an overall decline in the number of female 
defendants prosecuted since 2009.  
 
The uplift in summary non-motoring offences has been driven largely by the increase 
in the number of defendants proceeded against for TV licence evasion over the past 
ten years. The proportion of female offenders proceeded against for this offence 
accounted for 38% of all summary non-motoring proceedings in 2003, however this 
increased to 64% in 2013.  
 
Figure 5.05: The proportion that prosecutions for TV licence evasion29 
represents of all summary non-motoring proceedings, by sex, 2003 to 2013 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Proportion out of all summary non-
motoring offences
Females
Males
For male defendants however, the decline in the number proceeded against at the 
magistrates’ court is evident across both summary and indictable offences, although 
it has been greater for summary offences, falling by 42% and 29% respectively 
between 2003 and 2013.  
 
Although the majority of male and female defendants are prosecuted for summary 
offences, this accounts for a higher proportion of all proceedings for female 
defendants. Summary offences have accounted for an increasing proportion of 
female prosecutions over the past decade, from 78% in 2003 to 85% in 2013, while 
for males the proportion has fallen from 74% to 70% over the same period. 
                                                 
29 In 2003, the offence of Installing or using a television receiver without the appropriate licence was 
introduced under the Communications Act 2003, which came into effect on 25 July 2003. Prior to this, 
offences related to TV licence evasion were prosecuted under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 to 
1967. 
 
42

Furthermore, the types of summary offences defendants are typically prosecuted for 
differ by gender. For female defendants the majority of proceedings were for non-
motoring offences, whereas for males, the majority were for motoring offences.  
 
Figure 5.06: (a) Female and (b) male defendants proceeded against at 
magistrates’ courts, by offence type, 2003 to 2013.  
(a) 
 
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Number of female defendants (000s)
Indictable offences
Summary non motoring offences
Summary motoring offences
(b) 
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Number of male defendants (000s)
Indictable offences
Summary non motoring offences
Summary motoring offences
 
As with proceedings, the number of convictions has fallen for both male and female 
offenders since 2003, although the fall has been greater for male offenders. 
 
43

The conviction ratio30 has been between two and four percentage points higher for 
female offenders over the past decade and increased for both male and female 
defendants between 2003 and 2008, after which it remained broadly stable. 
  
Figure 5.07: Conviction ratio, by sex, 2003 to 2013 
68.0
70.0
72.0
74.0
76.0
78.0
80.0
82.0
84.0
86.0
Conviction ratio
Males
Females
 
Remands 
 
Remands data in this chapter reflect the court’s decision on whether a defendant 
prosecuted with a criminal offence should be placed in custody or released on bail 
during the court proceeding.31 The figures are compiled on a combination of the 
defendant's remand status during their trial and whilst awaiting sentence at the 
Crown Court (the Crown Court decision).32  
 
Of the 10,704 females and 93,287 males appearing at the Crown Court in 2013, 19% 
and 37% respectively were remanded in custody. These proportions have been 
broadly similar over the past five years. 
 
Figure 5.08 below shows the outcomes of those remanded in custody, 59.4% of 
females and 74.1% of males were sentenced to immediate custody. A slightly higher 
proportion of females were acquitted or not tried (13.4%) compared with males 
(11.5%). 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
30 The conviction ratio is calculated by dividing the number of defendants convicted by the number of 
defendants prosecuted in the same period 
31 The data in this section relates to persons remanded in each completed court case rather than to the 
number of remand decisions (a person may be remanded several times during a case).  
32 Data on remands at Crown Court were selected for analysis for the purposes of this report as they 
are deemed to be more reliable than those for the magistrates’ courts. Data on remand at magistrates’ 
court proceedings are, however, available in the supplementary tables that accompany this report.  
 
44
 

Figure 5.08: Outcomes of defendants remanded in custody at the Crown Court, 
by sex, 2013 
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Acquitted / not tried
Discharge
Fine
Community sentence
Suspended sentence
Immediate Custody
Otherwise dealt with
Failed to appear
Outcome
Males
Females
 
 
In 2013, 65% of females and 45% of males appearing at the Crown Court were 
remanded on bail. Of those, a little over a quarter of females were acquitted or not 
tried, compared with a little under a quarter of males. The most common sentence 
outcome for both females and males was a suspended sentence. A lower proportion 
of females who were remanded on bail were given an immediate custodial sentence 
compared with males.  
 
Figure 5.09: Defendants remanded on bail at the Crown Court by outcome and 
sex, 2013 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Acquitted / not tried
Discharge
Fine
Community sentence
Suspended sentence
Immediate Custody
Otherwise dealt with
Failed to appear
Outcome
Males
Females
 
 
Pre-sentence reports  
 
 
45
Pre-sentence reports (PSRs) provide information to the court about the offender and 
offence(s) committed and assist the court in deciding on a suitable sentence. This 
section looks at the concordance (agreement) between recommendations made in 
pre-sentence reports and sentences issued at court, and whether this differs between 
males and females. Data on PSRs relates to those aged 18 or older. Due to a 

change in methodology, it is not possible to produce a gender breakdown prior to 
2009.  
 
In each of the past five years, a higher proportion of female offenders were 
recommended for suspended sentence orders (SSO) and community sentences 
compared with male offenders. The concordance for a SSO was broadly stable for 
both genders between 2009 and 2012 (at around 62% for males and 53% for 
females), after which it increased (to 65% and 56% respectively). The uplift between 
2012 and 2013 has coincided with the increase in the number of male and female 
offenders sentenced to a SSO over this period.  
    
In 2013, the highest level of concordance was for a custodial sentence, with 79% of 
female offenders and 86% of male offenders whose PSR recommended a custodial 
sentence going on to receive one. These percentages have been broadly consistent 
with the previous four years for male offenders but have varied for female offenders. 
If a custodial sentence was not given for offenders recommended for custody then a 
SSO was the most likely sentence to be given, accounting for 12% of females and 
7% of males respectively in the latest year.  
 
Figure 5.10: The level of concordance between sentence recommendations and 
outcomes for (a) female and (b) male offenders, by sentence outcome, 2009 
and 2013 
 
(a)                                                                
 
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Level of Concordance
Immediate custodial sentences
Suspended Sentence Order
Community sentence
Fine
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
46
 

(b) 
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Level of Concordance
Immediate custodial sentences
Suspended Sentence Order
Community sentence
Fine
 
 
Over the past five years a higher proportion of males received an immediate 
custodial sentence than females when another sentence option had been 
recommended in the PSR (e.g. a SSO; community sentence or a fine).  
 
Sentencing 
 
Fines were the most common sentence given to both male and female offenders 
sentenced at all courts over the last 5 years, accounting for 62% and 79% of 
offenders sentenced respectively in the latest year (2013).   
 
The most common sentence given to both male and female juvenile offenders 
between 2009 and 2013 was a community sentence; however this was consistently 
higher for juvenile female offenders. For both juvenile and adult offenders, a higher 
proportion of males than females were sentenced to immediate custody at all courts. 
For juveniles, a higher proportion of males than females received fines, but for adults 
the reverse was true, with a higher proportion of females receiving fines than males 
in 2013. 
 
A different distribution of sentences is observed between male and female offenders 
for indictable offences. In the latest year, a custodial sentence was the most common 
sentence outcome given to male offenders while this was a community sentence for 
female offenders. The use of community sentences fell as a proportion of all 
sentences for indictable offences between 2009 and 2013, with a decrease of just 
over 10 percentage points for both genders, whilst there was an increase across 
most other sentence outcomes over the same period. A consistently higher 
proportion of female offenders received conditional discharges when compared to 
male offenders, with this being the second and fifth most common sentence 
respectively in the latest year.  
 
47
  

Figure 5.11: Sentencing outcomes (percentages of all offenders sentenced) for 
indictable offences at all courts, 2013 
     
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Immediate 
custody
Suspended 
sentence
Community 
sentence
Fine
Absolute 
discharge
Conditional 
discharge
Otherwise 
dealt with
Proportion sentenced
Male 
Female 
 
 
Offence Groups 
 
The different distribution of sentences between male and female offenders can partly 
be attributed to the type of offences they commit. 
 
The offence profile differs between male and female offenders however theft 
offences are the most common type of offence for which both male and female 
offenders were sentenced, accounting for 39% and 57% respectively of all indictable 
offences in the latest year. The proportion of female offenders sentenced for a theft 
offence has increased over the past four years while remaining broadly stable for 
male offenders over the same period.   
 
Immediate Custody 
 
The custody rate (proportion of offenders sentenced to immediate custody) has been 
higher for male offenders in each year between 2003 and 2013 for both summary 
and indictable offences. In the latest year, the custody rate for male offenders 
sentenced for an indictable offence was almost double that of female offenders, and 
for summary offences it was 6 times higher.  
 
48
 

Figure 5.12: Custody Rate for indictable and summary offences, by gender, 
2003 to 2013  
Fi
gu
re 
5.1
2: 
Cus
tod
y R
ate 
for 
indi
ctab
le a
nd s
umma
ry o
ffen
ces, by gender, 2003 to 
2013
Figure 5.12: Custody Rate for indictable and summary offences, by gender, 2003 to 2013
Figure 5.12: Custody Rate for indictable and summary offences, by gender, 2003 to 2013
Figure 5.12: Custody Rate for indictable and summary offences, by gender, 2003 to 2013
Figure 5.12: Custody Rate for indictable and summary offences, by gender, 2003 to 2013
 
 
Over the past ten years, both male and female offenders have more commonly been 
given short sentences - determinate custodial sentences of less than 12 months; 
however the proportion of offenders given these shorter sentences has been higher 
for female offenders. In 2013, short sentences accounted for 77% of all female 
offenders given custodial sentences, compared with 63% for male offenders. 
 
The higher proportion of short sentences for female offenders means that by 
comparison, sentences of 12 months and over account for a greater share of 
sentences for male offenders compared with females. This is also reflected in a 
higher average custodial sentence length (ACSL) for male offenders. The proportion 
of male offenders receiving a sentence of 12 months or over has increased over the 
past ten years while remaining broadly stable for female offenders over the same 
period.  
 
In each year between 2003 and 2013, male offenders had a higher ACSL than 
female offenders. Over this period the ACSL for male offenders has increased, whilst 
in contrast the ACSL for female offenders has decreased slightly. In 2013, male 
offenders had a higher ACSL than female offenders across each indictable and 
summary offence group in 2013. The differences across gender are likely to be a 
consequence of the type of offences that are committed by male and female 
offenders, as well as the mitigating and aggravating factors that affect each case. 
This will be investigated in more detail in the Mitigating and Aggravating Factors 
section later in the report. 
 
49
  

Figure 5.13: The average sentence length for offenders sentenced to custody, 
by sex, 2003 to 2013  
F
i
g
u
r
e 
5.
13
: 
Th
e av
erag
e se
nten
ce l
engt
h fo
r of
fend
ers sentenced to custody, by sex, 2003 to 
2013
Figure 5.13: The average sentence length for offenders sentenced to custody, by sex, 2003 to 2013
Figure 5.13: The average sentence length for offenders sentenced to custody, by sex, 2003 to 2013
 
50

Chapter 6: Offender Characteristics 
 
This chapter explores different characteristics of offenders; offending histories, 
mitigating and aggravating factors applied to sentences and differences in the levels 
of employment, income and benefits. Data on the offending histories of offenders 
cautioned or convicted in England and Wales over the last ten years are taken from 
the Ministry of Justice publication Criminal Justice Statistics 201333. Analysis of 
mitigating and aggravating factors applied to sentences for certain offence types at 
the Crown Court in 2013 comes from the Crown Court Sentencing Survey 201334 
and analysis of the differences in the levels of employment, income and benefits
offenders before and after conviction /caution /release from prison was taken from 
the Experimental statistics from the 2013 MoJ /DWP /HMRC data share
 of 
35. 
 
Offending Histories 
 
First Time Entrants 
 
Having a criminal history can influence the type of sanction and sentence received.  
 
In 2013, females made up around 1 in 4 first time entrants36 into the criminal justice 
system (England and Wales) and around 1 in 7 offenders cautioned or sentenced for 
a further offence. There has been little change in this trend in the 10 years since 
2003. 
 
Of all female offenders cautioned or convicted in 2003, almost half were first time 
entrants, this decreased to just over a third in 2013 (Figure 6.01a). Of all male 
offenders cautioned or convicted in 2003, around 1 in 4 were first time entrants. This 
decreased to around 1 in 5 in 2013 (Figure 6.01b). 
 
                                                 
33 Criminal Justice Statistics 2013: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-statistics-quarterly-
december-2013.  
34 Crown Court Sentencing Survey Annual 2013: sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/facts/crown-survey-
results-2013.htm.  
35 Experimental statistics from the 2013 MoJ /DWP /HMRC data share:  
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/experimental-statistics-from-the-2013-moj-dwp-hmrc-data-share. 
36 First time entrants are defined as offenders with no previous sanctions in England and Wales. 
Sanctions from other countries are not taken into account.  
 
51
 

Figure 6.01: (a) Female and (b) male cautioning and sentencing occasions, by 
number of previous sanctions, 2003 to 2013 
(a) 
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Number of cautioning and sentencing 
occasions (in 000s)
First time entrants
Offenders with previous sanctions
 
(b) 
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Number of cautioning and sentencing 
occasions (in 000s)
First time entrants
Offenders with previous sanctions
 
 
Offenders receiving cautions 
 
The proportion of all female first time entrants receiving cautions has declined over 
the last ten years from 69% in 2003 to 55% in 2013. Over the last ten years, there 
has also been a decline in the proportion of all male first time entrants receiving 
cautions from around 61% to 52%. Juvenile offenders are more likely than adult 
offenders to receive a caution rather than a conviction for their first offence, with 
females (83%) more likely to receive a youth caution than males (75%) in 2013. 
  
 
52
Looking more closely at male and female offenders cautioned in 2013 for an 
indictable offence, 40% of all females had one or more previous caution or 

conviction37 compared to 55% of all males. This difference could be due to the 
differences between the types of offences that males and females commit. 
 
Offenders receiving sentences38 
 
Of all female offenders receiving a sentence in 2013 for an indictable offence, 86% 
had at least one previous caution or conviction. For males this was slightly higher, at 
91%. One reason for this is that a larger proportion of male offenders sentenced for 
an indictable offence had 15 or more previous sanctions (37%) compared to only 
30% of female offenders. 
 
In 2013, the most common disposal for offenders convicted of an indictable offence 
with no previous sanctions was a community sentence for both males and females, 
around 30% for both. However, males were about twice as likely to receive an 
immediate custodial sentence (28%) compared with females (15%). In comparison, a 
higher proportion of females received suspended sentences and conditional 
discharges compared with males. 
 
Figure 6.02: Offenders sentenced for an indictable offence who have no 
previous sanctions against them, by proportion who received each type of 
sentence, by sex, 2013  
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Community 
sentence
Immediate 
custody
Fully 
suspended
Fine
Conditional 
discharge
Other
% offenders with sentence outcome
Males
Females
In 2013, the most common disposal for offenders convicted of an indictable offence 
with 15 or more previous sanctions was immediate custody for both males and 
females, reflecting that repeat offenders are more likely to get an immediate custodial 
sentence. A higher proportion of males (40%) with 15 or more previous sanctions 
received an immediate custodial sentence compared with females (31%). The 
difference in sentencing between males and females is most likely due to the 
different nature and seriousness of the offences being committed. 
 
                                                 
37 Unlike the previous paragraph on first time entrants, in this paragraph when looking at the number of 
previous cautions or convictions, sanctions from countries outside England and Wales are also 
considered. 
38 In this section, when looking at the number of previous cautions or convictions, sanctions from 
countries outside England and Wales are also considered. 
 
53

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors 
 
The Crown Court Sentencing Survey39 is a survey given to all judges (or other 
sentencers) sitting in the Crown Court, for them to complete every time a sentence is 
passed. The forms record details of the factors taken into account by the sentencer in 
deciding the sentence given to an offender. A form needs to be completed in respect 
of the principal offence for every sentence passed. The survey is voluntary and has a 
response rate of around 60%.  
 
The survey is only completed for those offenders sentenced at the Crown Court, 
where the types of offences committed are more serious than those that go through 
the Magistrates’ Court. As the large majority of offenders are sentenced at the 
Magistrates’ Court (around 97% of females, compared to around 91% of males), we 
are therefore only looking at the small proportion of offenders, and particularly of 
female offenders who commit more serious crimes.  
 
Several factors will often be applicable in a given case. The custody rates presented 
are calculated across all cases where the factor is present, whether it occurred in 
isolation or in combination with a number of other factors. Therefore the statistics 
should not be interpreted as showing the causal effect of each factor. 
In particular, the forms record the aggravating and mitigating factors that have been 
ticked by sentencers as having been taken into account in making sentencing 
decisions. Aggravating and mitigating factors are other factors relating to the case or 
the offender that provide the context to how and why the offence was committed. 
Aggravating factors increase seriousness and suggest that a more severe sentence 
is appropriate while mitigating factors reduce seriousness or reflect personal 
mitigation and suggest that a less severe sentence is appropriate.  
A case with many aggravating factors is dealt with more severely than a case with a 
few aggravating factors. These offenders are more likely to be sent to prison and 
more likely to be sent there for longer. Conversely, offenders with many mitigating 
factors taken into account in their case are less likely to be sent to prison. However, if 
they are sent to prison, there is not much variability in the time they spend there, 
compared to cases with fewer factors.40 
Theft and violence 
In 2013, there were ten different survey forms that each covered a different type of 
offence, with the forms mainly grouping similar offences together, especially those 
covered by a single guideline (for example, driving offences are grouped together 
and covered by one of the ten form types). As theft and violence against the person 
are the two offence groups with the highest number of female offenders within the 
court proceedings data, we have only looked at the corresponding survey offence 
groups within this section (theft, dishonesty and fraud, and assault and public order 
offences). 
                                                 
39 The Crown Court Sentencing Survey Annual 2013 results can be viewed in full here: 
sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/facts/sentencing-survey.htm.  
 
54
40 Crown Court Sentencing Survey 2013 annual publication - 
sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/facts/crown-survey-results-2013.htm.  

Theft, dishonesty and fraud 
 
In 2013, offenders for theft, dishonesty or fraud offences were sentenced using a 
guideline produced by a predecessor body41. In this guideline, the presence of 
previous relevant convictions is treated separately to other aggravating factors. In 
addition, lack of previous convictions is not specified as a mitigating factor. For these 
reasons, the presence or absence of previous convictions is not covered in the 
analysis below. 
 
Mitigating factors 
 
79% of females had at least one mitigating factor, compared to 58% of males. 
 
Females were more than three times as likely as males to have the factor of being 
the main carer/having caring responsibilities ticked on their form, and more than 
twice as likely as males to have the factor of having a physical or mental illness. 
 
Currently being in or having prospects of work or training was the only mitigating 
factor that had a higher proportion for males than females (11% of males had this 
factor compared with 9% of females). 
 
Figure 6.03: Theft, dishonesty and fraud – the most common mitigating factors, 
2013 (by decreasing proportion of females with each factor) 
Gr
aph
Graph
Graph
 
Aggravating factors 
 
A similar proportion of males and females had at least one aggravating factor (59% 
for females, 63% for males). 
 
Males were more than twice as likely as females to have the factor of being a 
member of a group or gang ticked on their form, and were also more likely to have 
the factor of committing the offence while on bail or licence.  
 
Females were more likely have the factor of targeting vulnerable victims. The offence 
for which this factor was ticked the most for females was ‘theft in breach of trust’, and 
                                                 
 
55
41 The predecessor body to the Sentencing Council was the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC). 

this offence was committed by a larger proportion of females than males within the 
theft, dishonesty and fraud offence group. 
 
Figure 6.04: Theft, dishonesty and fraud – the most common aggravating 
Custody rate 
factors, 2013 (by decreasing proportion of females with each factor) 
he custody rate for theft, dishonesty and fraud offences overall was 31% for 
 a 
er 
ales were consistently more likely to be given a custodial sentence than females. 
r 
igure 6.05: Theft, dishonesty and fraud - custody rate for the three most 
 
Gr
aph
Graph
Graph
 
T
females and 54% for males. In general, where mitigating factors were present,
lower custody rate was seen, and where aggravating factors were present, a high
custody rate was seen. 
 
M
For example, the custody rate for those with the aggravating factor of there being 
more than one victim had a 79% custody rate for males and a 63% custody rate fo
females. 
 
F
prevalent mitigating and aggravating factors for females, 2013 (dotted line
shows overall custody rate for each sex) 
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Pre-planning or pre-meditation
High value (including sentimental value) of the
property to the victim or substantial consequent
High level of gain
Age
Genuine remorse
Offender is main carer/has responsibilities
Aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
Custody rate
Males
Females
 
56

For mitigating factors, the difference between the overall custody rate and the 
custody rate for those with a particular factor ticked was higher for males than for 
females. For example, when the mitigating factor of physical or mental illness was 
ticked, the female custody rate was 11 percentage points lower than the overall 
custody rate for females, but 25 percentage points lower for males.  
 
The reverse was true for aggravating factors, where the difference between the 
overall custody rate and the custody rate for those with a particular factor ticked was 
higher for females than for males. For example, for the aggravating factor of targeting 
vulnerable victims, the custody rate was 35 percentage points higher than the overall 
custody rate for females, but only 24 percentage points higher for males. 
 
These differences between genders (larger differences between custody rates for 
mitigating factors when compared with the overall custody rate for males, and larger 
differences for aggravating factors for females) occur for almost all mitigating and 
aggravating factors, although again, this should not be interpreted as showing a 
causal effect between factors and custody rates, and males still consistently had a 
higher custody rate than females overall. 
 
 
Assault and public order offences 
 
Assault and public order offences follow the new Sentencing Council definitive 
guidelines and are therefore presented differently to those analysed for theft, 
dishonesty and fraud offences above. These factors are split into step one factors 
(indicating higher/lower culpability and greater/lesser harm) and step two factors 
(indicating increased/reduced seriousness). Step one factors are used for the initial 
assessment of the offence seriousness and are therefore more influential in 
determining the type and length of sentence passed and so they are considered 
separately to the step two factors that increase or reduce seriousness following the 
initial assessment. More information on this process can be found in the Crown Court 
Sentencing Survey publication.42 
 
Step one factors: indicating lower culpability or lesser harm 
 
The proportion of females that had a particular factor relating to lesser harm or lower 
culpability was higher than the corresponding proportion for males for each factor. 
The most common for both genders was lack of premeditation, which was ticked for 
20% of females and 17% of males. 
 
Step two factors: indicating reduced seriousness 
 
Similarly, in relation to step one factors, a higher proportion of females than males 
had each of the reducing seriousness factors ticked on their forms. For example, 
over a third of females had the factor of no previous relevant convictions ticked, 
whereas this was ticked for less than a quarter of males.  
 
Other reducing seriousness factors that had noticeably higher proportions for females 
than males include good character/exemplary conduct, sole/primary carer for 
dependent relatives, determination/demonstration to address addiction/behaviour, 
having a serious medical condition and having a serious mental disorder or learning 
disability. Being the sole/primary carer for dependent relatives stands out amongst 
                                                 
 
57
42 Crown Court Sentencing Survey 2013 annual publication - 
sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/facts/crown-survey-results-2013.htm.  

these, as females were more than six times as likely as males to have this factor 
(with 15.2% of females and 2.4% of males having this factor ticked for assault and 
public order offences). 
 
The most common factor for both genders was genuine remorse, with 4 in 10 
females and 3 in 10 males having this factor ticked. 
 
Figure 6.06: Assault and public order offences – The most common factors (for 
females) indicating lower culpability, lesser harm and reduced seriousness, by 
sex, 2013 
Gr
ap
h
Graph
Graph
 
Step one factors: indicating higher culpability or greater harm 
 
The proportions of males that had factors relating to greater harm or higher 
culpability were generally higher than the corresponding proportions for females. For 
example, males were twice as likely as females to have the higher culpability factor 
of deliberately causing more harm than necessary ticked on their form.  
 
For both genders, the most commonly ticked factor indicating higher culpability was 
threatened/actual use of weapon/equivalent, which was ticked for around 2 in 5 
offenders.  
 
Step two factors: indicating increased seriousness 
 
A higher proportion of males than females had factors relating to increased 
seriousness ticked on their forms.  
 
A noticeably larger proportion of males than females had location and timing as 
factors that increased seriousness. However, the most common factor for both 
genders that increased seriousness was the presence of previous relevant 
convictions, as this factor was ticked for nearly half of males and a third of females.  
 
 
 
 
58

Figure 6.07: Assault and public order offences – The most common factors (for 
females) indicating higher culpability, greater harm or increased seriousness, 
by sex, 2013 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Timing
Presence of
others
Ongoing effect on
victim
Under the
influence of
alcohol/drugs
Location
Previous relevant
convictions
Injury/fear of
injury (serious)
Sustained or
repeated assault
Threatened/actual
use of weapon
Step two: Increased seriousness
Step one: Greater harm
or higher culpability
Males
Females
Custody rate 
 
For assault and public order offences, where factors associated with reduced 
seriousness, lesser harm and lower culpability had been ticked, the custody rate was 
lower than the overall custody rate. The custody rate was higher than the overall 
custody rate for those with factors associated with increased seriousness, greater 
harm and higher culpability ticked on their form. 
 
For most factors relating to reduced seriousness, the difference between the custody 
rate for each factor and the overall custody rate was larger for males than females. 
For example, the custody rate for females who were the sole/primary carer to 
dependent relatives had a custody rate that was 12 percentage points lower than the 
overall custody rate, whereas the custody rate for males was 29 percentage points 
lower. However, the custody rate for males was still higher than the custody rate for 
females overall. 
 
This is the pattern followed for most reducing seriousness factors, but the picture was 
less clear for factors that increased seriousness, where the difference between the 
custody rate when a factor was ticked and the overall custody rate differed 
depending on the factor. For example, for females, the custody rate for those with the 
factor of failing to respond to warnings/concerns was very similar to the overall 
custody rate for females, but for males, the custody rate for those with this factor was 
27 percentage points higher than the overall rate for males. Those with the factor of 
the victim being particularly vulnerable had a custody rate around 19 percentage 
points higher than the overall rate for both genders. When the significant degree of 
premeditation factor was ticked, the female custody rate was 36 percentage points 
 
59

higher than the overall rate for females, but for males it was only 29 percentage 
points higher than the overall rate for males. 
 
 
Figure 6.08: Assault and public order offences – custody rate for the three 
most prevalent factors ticked for females for higher culpability/increased 
seriousness/greater harm and for lower culpability/reduced seriousness/lesser 
harm, 2013 (dotted line shows overall custody rate for each sex) 
Gr
aph
Graph
Graph
 
  
Employment, income and benefits before and after conviction / caution / release from 
prison 
 
An administrative data share between the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), the Department 
for Work and Pensions (DWP) and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) 
took place in 2013, linking offender data to P45 employment data and benefit data, 
for 4.3 million offenders who received at least one caution or conviction for a 
recordable offence in England and Wales between 2000 and February 2013. This 
section summarises findings from that data share43 44. 
 
Out-of-work benefits45 
 
In the general population, males are slightly more likely to be on out-of-work benefits 
than females: in February 2010, 14% of the male population of Great Britain and 13% 
of the female population were claiming out-of-work benefits. Over half of the out-of-
work benefit claimants (56%) in February 2010 were males. Female offenders were 
more likely to be on out-of-work benefits both before and after their caution/conviction 
or prison sentence, than male offenders. 53% of female offenders were on an out-of-
                                                 
43 The results in this section relate only to the 4.3 million individuals who were successfully matched to 
at least one benefit and/or P45 employment record, and relate to working age offenders only. Original 
publication: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/experimental-statistics-from-the-2013-moj-dwp-hmrc-
data-share. 
44 The majority of working age offenders in the matched data who were convicted/cautioned or released 
from prison for a recordable offence in 2010/2011 were male (81%) (which is consistent for all 
offenders). For those released from prison, this was 92%. 
 
60
45 Out-of-work benefits include Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employment and Support Allowance, Income 
Support, Incapacity Benefit, Passported Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance.   

work benefit one month after conviction/caution or release from prison in the 2010/11 
tax year, compared to 42% of male offenders.  
 
Females released from prison were also more likely to be on out-of-work benefit 
compared to males (just under two-thirds of female offenders claimed out-of-work 
benefits one month after release in 2010/11, compared to just over half of male 
offenders). However, the change in benefit levels is greater for males following their 
prison sentence: 54% of female prisoners were claiming benefits one month before 
their sentence, increasing by seven percentage points to 61% claiming out-of-work 
benefits one month after release. For the male prisoners, the increase is 13 
percentage points with 40% claiming benefits one month before their sentence 
compared to 53% after release. 
 
Females are more likely to have shorter sentences (70% had under 12 month 
sentences, compared to 59% of males, and a third of females had sentences of less 
than 3 months, compared to a quarter of males). This might have an impact on their 
out-of-work benefit levels - female offenders serving short sentences (under 12 
months) are the most likely to have a benefit that overlaps with their prison spell and 
carries on (around a third). However this does not fully explain the differences as 
even when just looking at shorter sentences (under 12 months), the increase in 
benefit levels are still greater for males. For both genders, there is a particularly large 
increase in pre and post prison sentence benefit levels for those serving 12 month 
plus sentences, but again the difference is greater for males (20 percentage points 
for females, 26 for males). 
 
P45 employment46 
 
P45 employment levels are very similar for both male and female offenders with 36% 
of male offenders and 34% of female offenders in P45 employment at the time of 
conviction/caution or release from custody in 2010/11. The P45 employment levels 
for both genders remain similar and stable in the two years either side of the 
conviction/caution or custodial sentence. 
 
P14 income47 
 
Male and female offenders’ median gross P14 income (after adjusting for earnings 
inflation) increased year on year following conviction/caution or release from prison in 
2003/04. This is likely due to the increase in age of the cohort – those who were 16 in 
2003/04 will be aged 24 eight years later, and income tends to increase with age. 
 
Median P14 gross income was lower for female offenders than for male offenders for 
all years following conviction/caution or release from prison in 2003/04. The data 
includes income for part-year and part-time working so differences between the 
genders may also reflect differences in working time.  
 
These findings are consistent with findings on general employees, where the Annual 
Survey of Hours and Earnings, which calculates the figures on a different basis, 
showed that the median amount of earnings for UK employees aged 16 and over, in 
2011, was £26,300 for males and £16,200 for females. 
                                                 
46 P45 employment excludes self employment, cash-in-hand work and some lower paid jobs. 
 
61
47 P14 income includes information on gross income derived from P14 forms sent to HMRC by 
employers. Income from self-employment, cash-in-hand work and some lower paid jobs is not included. 
P14 income includes income for part-year and part-time work, so does not only reflect full-time, annual 
income.   

 
Figure 6.09: Median adjusted P14 income (to take into account earnings 
inflation) of offenders released from prison or convicted/cautioned in 2003/04, 
by sex, 2004/05 to 2012/13  
£0
£2,000
£4,000
£6,000
£8,000
£10,000
£12,000
£14,000
£16,000
£18,000
£20,000
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12 2012/13*
Median adjusted P14 income
Males
Females
Males*
Females*
 
*The P14 data for 2012/13 is incomplete and therefore results for this year should be treated with 
caution. See the main linked data publication48 for more details. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
62
48 The Experimental statistics publication from which these results were taken can be found at this link, 
along with more information on definitions and data issues: 
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/experimental-statistics-from-the-2013-moj-dwp-hmrc-data-share. 

Chapter 7: Offence Analysis 
 
This section looks at individual offences that are prominent amongst the narrative of 
women in the Criminal Justice System. It will investigate differences between male 
and female defendants for these offences and whether the picture has changed over 
time.    
 
The offences included in this chapter were selected for different reasons listed below: 
  
 
Shoplifting – Theft offences account for a high proportion of all convictions 
across both genders, the majority of which are for shoplifting.   
 
Violence Against the Person – This accounts for the second largest number 
of convictions for female offenders. 
 
Drug Offences – There have been noticeable differences in the number and 
proportion of females sentences to custody for this offence group. 
 
Benefit Fraud – This was highlighted as an area of interest by the Women’s 
Independent Advisory Group (for statistics on women in the criminal justice 
system). 
 
Theft offences – shoplifting 
 
In 2013, shoplifting convictions made up the majority of theft convictions (of those 
females and males convicted of theft, the offence was shoplifting in 4 out of 5 cases 
for females and 3 out of 5 cases for males). Shoplifting accounted for 45% of all 
female indictable convictions, up from 39% in 2009. For male defendants, shoplifting 
made up around 22% of indictable convictions in each of the past five years.  
 
In 2013, shoplifting was most commonly dealt with in court (as opposed to through an 
out of court disposal), although this was more common for male offenders. This 
difference between male and female offenders may in part be attributed to the type of 
shoplifting offences they commit. For example, in each of the previous five years a 
higher proportion of female offenders have been given a penalty notice for disorder 
(PND) for retail theft of under £10049.  
 
                                                 
 
63
49 Offence introduced with effect from 1 November 2004. Until July 2009, a PND could be given for retail 
theft of up to £200. 

Figure 7.01: Proportion of offenders given a PND, caution or conviction for 
various forms of shoplifting offence, 2009 to 2013 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
 
 
Of those sentenced at court, the two most common disposals for both male and 
female offenders were conditional discharges and community sentences. 
 
Figure 7.02: Sentencing outcomes for shoplifting, by sex, 2013 
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Immediate custody
Suspended sentence
Community sentence
Fine
Absolute discharge
Conditional discharge
Otherwise dealt with
Proportion
Males
Females
 
 
For male and female offenders convicted for shoplifting in 2013 with previous 
cautions or convictions, a greater proportion of the offences they previously 
committed were for theft (56% for female offenders compared with 48% for male 
offenders). This indicates that male offenders with a previous criminal history have 
committed a slightly broader range of offences than female offenders.   
 
 
 
 
 
64

Selected violence against the person offences  
 
The ‘violence against the person’ offence group contains numerous different 
offences. This section concentrates on the four most common for females: 
 
Grievous bodily harm (GBH) without intent 
 
Actual bodily harm (ABH)50 
 
Breach of a restraining order 
 
Cruelty to or neglect of children 
 
With the exception of cruelty to or neglect of children, each of these offences 
accounted for a larger proportion of male violent offenders than female violent 
offenders over the past ten years.  
 
The most common violent offence for which both male and female offenders were 
convicted between 2003 and 2013 was ABH. The proportion of offenders convicted 
for this offence remained broadly stable until 2010 when it accounted for 
approximately half of all violence offences for both male and female offenders; 
however, it has since fallen to around a third in 2013. 
 
Figure 7.03: Convictions for the most common violent offences as a proportion 
of all violent offences, by sex, 2013  
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Actual bodily harm
Breach of a 
restraining order
Grievous bodily 
harm without intent
Cruelty or neglect 
of children
Other Violent 
Offences
Proportion of offenders convicted
Offence Type
Male
Female
 
 
The type of sentence outcome given at court differs between male and female 
offenders and has also changed over time, due largely to the greater use of SSOs 
since 2005 when they became more readily available under the Criminal Justice Act 
2003. As with the wider trend for all indictable offences (highlighted in the 
defendants’ chapter) there was also a decline in the proportion of community 
sentences over the time period.  
 
The most common disposal given to male offenders across each of the four specified 
violence offences is now an immediate custodial sentence, with the proportion 
increasing over the last ten years for ABH and remaining stable for the other 
offences. By contrast the type of sentence outcome given to female offenders has 
                                                 
 
65
50 Figures for ABH includes racially and religiously aggravated types of the offence 

differed for each of these four offences. In 2013, the most common disposal given for 
the offences of ABH and cruelty to or neglect of children was a community sentence, 
whilst for GBH without intent it was a SSO and for breach of a restraining order it 
came under the otherwise dealt with category. 
 
Across each of these four offences, male offenders were around twice as likely to be 
given an immediate custodial sentence than female offenders. By contrast, a greater 
proportion of female offenders received less severe sentence outcomes.  
 
Figure 7.04: Offenders sentenced for ABH, by sentence outcome, 2013 
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Immediate 
custody
Suspended 
sentence
Community 
sentence
Fine
Absolute 
discharge
Conditional 
discharge
Otherwise 
dealt with
Proportion of offenders sentenced
Sentence Outcome
Females
Males
 
Figure 7.05: Offenders sentenced for cruelty to or neglect of a child, by 
sentence outcome, 2013 
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Immediate 
custody
Suspended 
sentence
Community 
sentence
Fine
Absolute 
discharge
Conditional 
discharge
Otherwise 
dealt with
Proportion of offenders sentenced
Sentence Outcome
Females
Males
 
66
Over the past ten years, male offenders received longer average prison sentences 
than female offenders for each of the four specified violent offences. The one 
exception is cruelty to or neglect of children, which has varied between male and 
female offenders, although this may be a consequence of the small numbers 
involved.   

 
The difference in the type of sentence given to male and female offenders can partly 
be attributed to the use of mitigating and aggravating factors that affect each case, 
with the presence of aggravating factors more prevalent in cases for male offenders 
as opposed to mitigating factors which are more common amongst cases for female 
offenders. Further details can be found in the Mitigating and Aggravating Factors 
section. 
 
Drug Offences 
 
Use of out of court disposals51 
 
Drug offences account for the highest proportion of cautions issued to male offenders 
of any indictable offence group, and are the third highest offence group for female 
offenders (after theft and violence against the person). From 2008 onwards, there 
was a decline in the number of cautions issued for both genders, and this coincided 
with the introduction of the PND for possession of cannabis and also follows the 
general decline in cautions issued. (See Chapter 4 for more details on the use of out 
of court disposals).  
 
Overall, a higher proportion of male offenders are dealt with through a conviction at 
court for drug offences compared with female offenders. A conviction was the most 
common disposal for male offenders while a caution has broadly remained the most 
common for female offenders over the past ten years.  
 
Figure 7.06: The number of offenders given a PND, caution or convicted at all 
courts for drug offences: (a) female offenders, (b) male offenders, 2003 to 2013 
 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
20032004200520062007200820092010201120122013
Proportion of offenders
PNDs
Cautions
Convictions
Introduction of 
possession of cannabis 
as a PND
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Proportion of offenders
PNDs
Cautions
Convictions
Introduction of 
possession of cannabis 
as a PND
Custodial sentences 
 
In 2013, the number of females sentenced to immediate custody was less than half 
the number sentenced in 2003. This reflects both a fall in the total number of females 
sentenced for drug offences over the period and a fall in the custody rate which in 
2013 was at a ten-year low at 11%. 
 
In contrast there were more males sentenced to custody in 2013 than in 2003 
(although down from a peak in 2011). This reflects an increase in the total number of 
                                                 
51 Cannabis warnings are not included in this section as they are not recorded by sex. 
 
67

male offenders sentenced for drug offences over the period and a custody rate that is 
broadly similar to the rate in 2003, although down from a high of about 20% in 2004.  
 
For both male and female offenders there was a drop in sentences for drug offences 
between 2004 and 2008 which coincides with the period that cannabis was classified 
as a Class C drug. 
 
Figure 7.07: Total (a) female and (b) male offenders sentenced, offenders 
sentenced to custody and the custody rate for drug offences, 2003 to 2013  
(a) 
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Custody rate
Number of offenders sentenced
Total Sentenced
Sentenced to custody
Custody rate
(b) 
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Custody rate
Number of offenders sentenced
Total Sentenced
Sentenced to custody
Custody rate
 
Since 2003 there has been a decrease in the number of female offenders sentenced 
across most drug offences, except for production, supply and possession with intent 
 
68

to supply Class B drugs. The fall in the custody rate for female offenders is primarily 
driven by: 
 
A sharp fall in the number of females convicted of importation of a Class A 
drug. In 2003 this accounted for 5% of all female convictions for drug 
offences, but 23% of all females sentences of immediate custody reflecting 
the high (almost 100%) custody rate for this offence. In 2013, this offence 
accounted for only 1% of all female drug convictions. 
 
Changes in the offence mix. In 2013 a smaller share of drug convictions for 
female offenders relate to Class A drug offences, which have the higher 
custody rates. 
 
The increase in the number of male offenders sentenced for drug offences has 
primarily been driven by a large increase (180%) in the number of convictions for 
production, supply and possession with intent to supply Class B drugs since 2003. 
 
The most common drug offences for which both male and female offenders were 
sentenced were for class A, B and C offences for possession of a controlled drug and 
for production, supply and possession with intent to supply a controlled drug. These 
offences have formed the majority of all convictions for both genders over the past 
ten years, however they accounted for a greater share amongst male offenders. In 
2013 possession offences accounted for around two thirds of all drug convictions for 
both males and females, although the custody rate is relatively low for these 
offences. The custody rates for possession offences were broadly similar for male 
and female offenders, but were lower for female offenders for offences of production, 
supply and possession with intent to supply a controlled drug. 
 
Figure 7.08: Custody rate for selected drug offences, by sex, 2013 
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Possession of a controlled drug - Class A
Possession of a controlled drug - Class B
Possession of a controlled drug - Class C
Production, supply and possession with intent to 
supply a controlled drug - Class A
Production, supply and possession with intent to 
supply a controlled drug - Class B
Production, supply and possession with intent to 
supply a controlled drug - Class C
Custody rate
Females
Males
 
The average custodial sentence length has been broadly similar for both genders 
between 2003 and 2011 after which this has diverged, with the ACSL increasing for 
male offenders and decreasing for female offenders. 
 
Benefit fraud 
 
69
Offenders who have committed benefit fraud may be convicted for an offence that 
specifically mentions benefit fraud, or for a more general offence such as an offence 
related to fraud, forgery, identity or serious organised crime. It is not possible to 

specifically identify benefit fraud within these more general offences and so the only 
offences included in this section are those that explicitly mention benefit fraud. 
Two specific offences make up the vast majority of benefit fraud offences for which 
people are prosecuted and convicted at court: the triable either way52 offence of 
dishonest representation for obtaining benefits and the summary offence of false 
representation for obtaining benefits, contravention of regulations, etc. The main 
difference between these is that dishonesty needs to be proven in order to convict 
someone of dishonest representation, whereas this is not the case for false 
representation. 
 
A higher number of females than males were convicted for dishonest representation 
between 2003 and 2013. For false representation, a higher number of males were 
convicted between 2003 and 2007; thereafter numbers became more similar, 
although in 2013, females overtook males as having the higher number of 
convictions for this offence.  
 
Figure 7.09: Number of offenders convicted for selected benefit fraud offences, 
by sex, 2013 
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Females
Males
Females
Males
Dishonest representation
False representation
Number of convictions
 
 
In 2013, benefit fraud sentencing outcomes for females and males were broadly 
similar, although, in general, outcomes differed between the two offences. Dishonest 
representation, for which a defendant can be tried either at the Crown Court or at a 
magistrates’ court, can result in a custodial sentence, and in 2013, around 7% of both 
genders were given immediate custody. False representation, which is a summary-
only offence, leads mainly to a fine, a conditional discharge or a community 
sentence.  
 
                                                 
 
70
52 A triable either way offence may be tried either at the Crown Court or at a magistrates’ court. 

Figure 7.10: Sentencing outcomes for benefit fraud offences: (a) Dishonest 
representation, (b) False representation, by sex, 2013 
(a) 
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Immediate 
custody
Suspended 
sentence
Community 
sentence
Fine
Absolute 
discharge
Conditional 
discharge
Otherwise 
dealt with
Proportion of offenders sentenced
Sentence Outcome
Females
Males
 
 (b) 
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Immediate 
custody
Suspended 
sentence
Community 
sentence
Fine
Absolute 
discharge
Conditional 
discharge
Otherwise 
dealt with
Proportion of offenders sentenced
Sentence Outcome
Females
Males
 
 
71
 

Chapter 8: Offender Management 
 
This chapter provides statistics relating to offenders in custody or under supervision 
in the community and proven re-offending information. Much of this information has 
previously been published in the Offender Management Statistics Quarterly53, Safety 
in Custody Statistics54, Accredited Programmes Annual Bulletin55 and Proven Re-
offending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin56 publications. 
 
Offenders in Custody 
 
Prison population 
 
On 30 June 2014, the total prison population included sentenced prisoners (83.6%), 
those on remand (14.3%) and non-criminal prisoners (2.1%). This is broadly similar 
to the profile on 30 June 2013, at which time sentenced prisoners accounted for 
84.6% of the total population 
 
The total prison population as at 30 June 2014 was 85,509, women accounted for 
4.6% (3,929) of this total. On 30 June 2013, the total prison population was 83,842 
with women accounting for 4.6% (3,853) of this total. Over the last 10 years the 
number of male prisoners has increased, whilst the number of female prisoners has 
decreased (Figure 8.01). This has led to a decrease in the proportion of females in 
the prison population from 6.0% in 2004 to 4.6% in 2014. 
 
Figure 8.01: Prison population, by sex, at 30th June, 2004 to 2014 
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Prison population
Males
Females
 
For both males and females the number held on remand has decreased over the last 
decade; however both have increased in the latest year. This increase has been 
driven by the adult remand population, which after remaining stable up until the end 
                                                 
53 Offender Management Statistics Bulletin annual 2013 (includes quarterly publication, October to 
December 2013): www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-october-
december-2013-and-annual. 
54 Safety in Custody Statistics quarterly update to June 2014: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/safety-
in-custody-statistics-quarterly-update-to-june-2014  
55 Accredited programmes annual bulletin 2013/14: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/accredited-
programmes-annual-bulletin-2013-to-2014.  
 
72
56 Proven Re-offending statistics bulletin January 2012 to December 2012: 
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/proven-reoffending-statistics-january-2012-to-december-2012. 

of August 2013, rose sharply until the end of October 2013, and has since risen more 
gradually up until the end of June 2014. This has been attributed to an increase in 
demand on the courts, which in some cases has led to longer waiting times.  
 
Over the last decade the proportion of foreign nationals in the female prison 
population increased to a high of 22% in 2007 and has since decreased (Figure 
8.02). In contrast, the proportion of foreign nationals in the male prison population 
has remained relatively stable. 
 
Figure 8.02: Proportion of foreign national prisoners, by sex, at 30th June, 2004 
to 2014 
 
 
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Foreign national prisoners
Males
Females
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Population under immediate custodial sentence57 
 
The prison population under immediate custodial sentence is a reflection of 
sentencing outcomes at court and is impacted by both the number of offenders given 
immediate custodial sentences as well as the sentence length. 
 
Prison sentences can be divided into two broad groups: determinate sentences 
which are for a fixed period, and indeterminate sentences (these include life 
sentences and indeterminate sentences for public protection – IPPs) which have a 
minimum fixed period, known as a tariff that must be served before release is 
considered by the parole board. There is a higher proportion of males serving 
indeterminate sentences compared with females, 17.9% and 11.9% respectively, at 
30 June 2014.  
 
The proportion of males and females under indeterminate sentences has increased 
over the last decade, but for both has dropped in the latest year. This trend reflects 
changes in legislation under the LASPO Act 2012 impacting Indeterminate Sentence 
for Public Protection (IPPs) (summarised in Figure 8.03 below). This Act abolished 
the IPP and introduced the new Extended Determinate Sentence (EDS), which is 
available for offenders who would previously have received an IPP. IPPs accounted 
for 41.2% of male prisoners with an indeterminate sentence compared with 24.9% of 
female prisoners with an indeterminate sentence. 
                                                 
57 Does not include fine defaulters 
 
73

Figure 8.03: Proportion of indeterminate sentences of all sentenced prisoners 
by sex at 30th June, 2004 to 2014 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The sentence length profile of males and females under a determinate sentence 
differs, with a higher proportion of females than males sentenced to less than 12 
months. This reflects sentencing data which shows that on average male offenders 
receive longer custodial sentences than female offenders, which is partly due to the 
different types of offences that males and females commit. 
 
Figure 8.04: Sentence length profile of determinate sentences, by sex, 30 June 
2014 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Less than or 
equal to 6 
months
Greater than 6 
months to less 
than 12 months
12 months to 
less than 4 years
4 years or more 
(excluding 
indeterminate 
sentences)
Proportion of determinate sentences
Females
Males
 
In the last decade the proportion of males held under a determinate sentence of 4 
years or more has increased. For females, the proportion sentenced to a custodial 
sentence of less than 6 months has increased. 
 
 
74

For both male and female prisoners, the most common offence group for which they 
were convicted is violence against the person, however otherwise the offence profile 
does differ by sex, as can be seen in Figure 8.05 below. For male prisoners, the 
second most common offence group for which they received a custodial sentence is 
sexual offences, whilst for female prisoners it is theft and handling. 
 
Figure 8.05: Offence group profile of prison population under an immediate 
custodial sentence by sex, 30 June 2014 
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Violence
against
the
person
Sexual
offences
Robbery Burglary Theft and
handling
Fraud
and
forgery
Drug
offences
Motoring
offences
Other
offences
Offence
not
recorded
Offence type
Prison population under immediate 
custodial sentence
Males
Females
For male prisoners, over the last five years there has been a notable increase in the 
proportion of prisoners convicted of sexual offences (12.5% in 2009 compared with 
16.3% in 2014). For female prisoners, there has been a notable drop in the 
proportion with a drug offence conviction (25.2% in 2009 compared with 13.8% in 
2014). This reflects changes in both the volumes sentenced for these offences and 
the custody rates. For further information see the drug offences section in Chapter 7.  
 
Home Detention Curfew 
 
To be considered for release under Home Detention Curfew an offender must be 
serving a sentence of between three months to less than 4 years. Offenders who are 
released onto HDC spend up to the last 135 days of the custodial part of their 
sentence outside of prison providing they do not breach the rules of their curfew. In 
2013 of those eligible for release58, 21% (9,051) of males were released compared 
with 37% (1,368) of females. Over the last decade a higher proportion of females 
eligible for HDC have been released compared to eligible males. 
 
Release on temporary licence (ROTL) 
 
Release on temporary licence (ROTL) is a mechanism that enables prisoners to 
participate in necessary activities, outside of the prison establishment, that directly 
contributes to their resettlement into the community and their development of a 
purposeful, law-abiding life. 
 
                                                 
58 This is the number of offenders serving sentences of between 3 months and 4 years potentially 
eligible for release on Home Detention Curfew (HDC) in the relevant period.  In practice offenders are 
subject to a risk assessment before being considered for release on HDC, so some of these offenders 
will turn out not to be eligible for release on HDC. 
 
75

There is no automatic right of entitlement for ROTL to be granted. A prisoner will only 
be released on temporary licence if they are eligible for release and once they have 
satisfied a stringent risk assessment carried out by a designated ROTL Board at the 
prison. 
 
In 2013, there were 529,350 releases on temporary licence; 93.8% from male 
establishments and 6.2% from female establishments. These releases related to 
11,211 individuals who had at least one instance of ROTL; 10,392 males and 819 
females. In 2013, less than 0.1% of releases failed, although the failure rate of males 
was double the failure rate of females. 
 
While the number of releases increased from 2012 to 2013, there was a decrease in 
the number of individuals released, meaning that those individuals who were 
released in 2013 were released more times than those in 2012, on average. 
 
Accredited programmes 
 
A range of accredited programmes can be offered to offenders, varying in length, 
complexity and mode of delivery. Programmes have been developed to target the 
particular risks and needs for different types of offending behaviour, with the aim of 
reducing re-offending.59 
 
Figure 8.06: (a) Female and (b) Male accredited prison programme starts and 
completions, 2009/10 to 2013/14 
(a)                                                                      (b) 
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
Starts and Completions
Total starts
Total completions
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
Starts and Completions
Total starts
Total completions
 
Accredited programme starts and completions fell between 2009/10 and 2013/14, 
with a sharper fall for starts for both genders. Starts and completions for females fell 
by 62% and 67% respectively, while for males the decreases in starts and 
completions were 53% and 49% respectively. 
 
General Offending and Substance Misuse programmes were the two programme 
categories with the highest number of starts between 2009/10 and 2013/14 for both 
genders, with the exception of 2013/14 for males, where Violence overtook 
Substance Misuse. General Offending made up 83% of female starts and 57% of 
male starts in 2013/14. 
 
                                                 
59 The Accredited Programmes Annual Bulletin 2013/14 contains more information and can be found 
here: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/accredited-programmes-annual-bulletin-2013-to-2014 
 
76

The substantial decrease in the number of programme starts for substance misuse 
over the five year period is partly due to changes in the way that substance misuse 
interventions are funded and commissioned. As of 1st April 2011, drug and alcohol 
treatment services became the responsibility of the Department of Health (DH), 
devolving the choice of programmes commissioned and funded to local partnerships, 
a number of which opted to deliver non-accredited programmes instead. 
 
Figure 8.07: (a) Female and (b) male prison programme starts for General 
Offending, Substance Misuse and Violence programmes, 2009/10 to 2013/14 
a)                                                                   b) 
  
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
Starts 
General Offending
Substance Misuse
Violence
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
Starts 
General Offending
Substance Misuse
Violence
Discipline in prison establishments 
 
In 2013, there were 85,532 adjudications for proven offences in custody, 80,616 in 
male establishments (100 per 100 population) and 4,916 in female establishments 
(124 per 100 population). Over the last decade the number of adjudications60 per 100 
prisoners has fallen for both males and females, but female prisoners have 
consistently had a higher rate of adjudications per 100 population, although this 
difference has reduced in recent years (Figure 8.08). 
 
 
                                                 
60 This analysis compares the rate of offences punished in male and female establishments. Any 
differences may therefore reflect the way in which the CJS responds to the behaviour of men and 
women, and differences in the offences reported, and do not necessarily reflect differences in the 
behaviour of prisoners themselves. 
 
77

Figure 8.08: Rate of proven adjudications per 100 prison population, 2004 to 
2013 
0
50
100
150
200
250
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Adjudication rate per 100 prison 
population
Males
Females
 
In 2013 for both males and females the most common offence punished in prison 
establishments was disobedience or disrespect (39 and 53 offences punished per 
100 prisoners respectively).  
 
Safety in prison custody 
 
For the last five years the rate of assaults has been lower for female prisoners 
compared with male prisoners reversing the trend seen in earlier years (Figure 8.09). 
The rate of assaults by female prisoners has decreased from a peak of 261 per 1,000 
prisoners in 2006 to 125 per 1,000 in 2013. Similarly the rate of assaults on staff by 
female prisoners has fallen from a high of 118 per 1,000 prisoners in 2006 to 39 per 
1,000 prisoners in 2013. 
 
Figure 8.09: Rate of (a) assaults and (b) assaults on staff per 1,000 prisoners by 
sex, 2003 to 2013 
a) 
 
 
 
 
 
   b) 
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
2011 2012 2013
Rate of assaults on staff per 1,000 prisoners
Males
Females
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
2011 2012
2013
Rate of assaults per 1,000 prisoners
Males
Females
                                                                              
In 2013, male prisoners accounted for 97.8% of serious assaults, whilst accounting 
for 95.4% of the population therefore accounting for a greater share of serious 
assaults. 
 
 
78

The rate of self-harm incidents is far higher for females prisoners compared with 
male prisoners. In 2013 there were 23,183 incidents of self-harm, of which 25.8% 
involved female prisoners, despite females accounting for only 4.6% of the prison 
population. This is in part due to a higher rate of female prisoners self-harming 
compared with male prisoners, and in part because on average female prisoners 
have a higher rate of incidents per self-harming individual when compared with male 
prisoners (6 compared with 3 in 2013). Figure 8.10 below shows the frequency of 
self-harm incidents for male and female prisoners. 
 
Figure 8.10: Frequency of self-harm incidents by sex, 2013 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
and
over
Incidents per individual self-harming
Males
Females
Whilst the rate of both self-harm incidents and individuals self-harming remains far 
higher for females compared with males, these rates have fallen for female prisoners 
in recent years, whilst the rates for male prisoners have increased (Figure 8.11). 
 
Figure 8.11: The rate of (a) individuals self-harming and (b) self-harm incidents 
per 1,000 prisoners, 2004 to 2013 
(a) 
 
 
 
 
 
          (b)  
G
raph
Graph
Graph
Graph
-
50 
100 
150 
200 
250 
300 
350 
400 
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Rate of individuals self-harming per 
1,000 prisoners
Males
Females
 
Whilst more female prisoners self-harm and self-harm more frequently than men, the 
data suggests that acts of self-harm incidents by male prisoners are more serious. In 
2013, there were 1,594 self-harm related hospital attendances, relating to 8.6% of 
male self-harm incidents and 2.0% of female self-harm incidents. 
 
79

In 2013 there were 75 self-inflicted deaths in custody (73 males and 2 females), 
compared with an average of about 60 per year between 2008 and 2012. The 
increase in 2013 reflects an increase in self-inflicted deaths of male prisoners. 
 
Other reports 
 
Other government reports that have been published on gender differences amongst 
prisoners may also be of interest including a research report on gender differences in 
substance misuse and mental health amongst prisoners61.  
 
Probation62 
 
This section looks at offenders under supervision as result of a court order. This 
includes those under supervision as a result of a community sentence or a 
suspended sentence order (SSO). 
 
Probation caseload under supervision 
 
At the end of December 2013, a total of 16,712 women (15%) and 94,238 men (85%) 
were under supervision as a result of a court order- these proportions have remained 
stable since 2003. 
 
Since 2007, the number of offenders under supervision as a result of both community 
orders and SSOs has fallen, reflecting observed sentencing trends. The decrease 
was greater for men (27%) than women (23%) across both order types. 
 
Figure 8.12: Offenders supervised by the Probation Service at end of period, 
under court orders by sex, December 2003 to December 2013 
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Under supervision (thousands)
Males
Females
 
 
Since 2007, there has been an increase of 6 percentage points in the proportion of 
both male and female offenders under supervision as a result of a community order 
aged 30 and over. There has also been an increase in the proportion of both male 
and female offenders aged 30 and over under supervision as a result of an SSO. 
                                                 
61 See the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) report on substance misuse and mental health 
amongst prisoners here: www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-differences-in-substance-misuse-
and-mental-health-amongst-prisoners--2. 
 
80
62 This section includes offenders dealt with by the Probation Service, who generally deal with those 
aged 18 years and over. Those under 18 are mostly dealt with by Youth Offending Teams, answering to 
the Youth Justice Board and are not included within these statistics.  

The average length of a community order and SSO continued to be shorter for 
women (12.3 and 17.4 months in 2013) than for men (at 14.8 and 18.1 months in 
2013).  For community orders in particular this gap has widened since 2007. 
  
Requirements 
 
Women commencing supervision as a result of a community order or SSO generally 
had fewer requirements to comply with than men.  
 
Figure 8.13: Proportion of offenders commencing supervision by number of 
requirements and order, by sex, 2013 
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Males
Females
Males
Females
Community Orders
Suspended 
Sentence Orders
% offenders
3 + requirements 
(Female)
2 requirements 
(Female)
1 requirement 
(Female)
3 + requirements 
(Male)
2 requirements 
(Male)
1 requirement 
(Male)
 
Supervision and unpaid work requirements continued to be the most common 
requirements applied to both men and women commencing community order and 
SSOs together accounting for about 60% of all requirements given for both men and 
women in 2013. Overall and for most requirement types the number of applied 
requirements has fallen since 2009 in line with the decrease in the number of 
offenders starting these orders, however a notable exception has been the number of 
specified activity63 requirements. Specified activity requirements as a proportion of all 
requirements received has doubled for female offenders commencing community 
orders or SSOs from 9% in 2010 to 18% in 2013. In comparison, there has been a 4 
percentage point increase in this for male offenders from 6% in 2010 to 10% in 2013.  
 
                                                 
 
81
63 Specified Activities include education and training, victim reparation and financial management 

Figure 8.14: Specified activity requirements as a proportion of all requirements 
applied to offenders commencing community orders or SSOs, 2007 to 2013 
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Male
Female
 
Accredited Programmes 
 
A range of accredited programmes can be offered to offenders, varying in length, 
complexity and mode of delivery. Programmes have been developed to target the 
particular risks and needs for different types of offending behaviour, with the aim of 
reducing re-offending.64  
 
Accredited programme starts and completions fell from 2009/10 to 2013/14 for both 
genders, although the fall was sharper for female offenders. Starts and completions 
for females fell by 67% and 62% respectively, while for males the decreases in starts 
and completions were 37% and 38% respectively. 
 
Figure 8.15: Accredited programme starts and completions in the community 
for (a) females and (b) males, 2009/10 to 2013/14 
a) 
 
   
 
 
 
      b)  
 
                                                 
64 The Accredited Programmes Annual Bulletin 2013/14 contains more information and can be found 
here: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/accredited-programmes-annual-bulletin-2013-to-2014 
 
82

In the latest year, programme starts for male offenders decreased by 2% from 
2012/13 whilst there was a 24% decrease for female offenders in the same period. 
This difference is largely due to a 23% increase in domestic violence programme 
starts, whilst starts for all other programme types fell. Domestic violence programmes 
are only available to male offenders. In 2013/14 domestic violence programme starts 
accounted for just under a third of all accredited programme starts for male 
offenders. 
 
Terminations 
 
A community sentence can terminate successfully by running its full course or 
terminating early for good progress. Alternatively, the offender can fail to comply with 
the requirements attached or otherwise fail to complete the order. 
 
Of the community sentences terminated in 2013, around two-thirds were terminated 
successfully (either ran full course or terminated early for good progress), this is 
consistent with proportions seen since 2009.  Higher proportions of women than men 
successfully terminated both community orders (71% versus 66%) and SSOs (73% 
versus 66%). 
 
Other reports 
 
Other government reports that have been published on offenders under supervision 
in the community and that may also be of interest include findings from the Offender 
Management Community Cohort Study, a longitudinal cohort study of adult offenders 
who started Community Orders between October 2009 and December 201065. 
 
Proven re-offending 
 
Proven re-offending for adult and juvenile offenders 
 
This section looks at proven re-offending figures for adult and juvenile offenders in 
England and Wales, who were released from custody, received a non-custodial 
conviction at court or received a caution, reprimand or warning between January and 
December 201266. A proven re-offence is any offence committed in a one year 
follow-up period that resulted in a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning 
within the one year follow-up or within a further six month waiting period to allow the 
offence to be proven in court. 
                                                
 
In the 2012 cohort, 82% were male and 18% were female – a gender split that has 
changed little over the years since 2002. Male offenders from the January to 
December 2012 cohort re-offended at a higher rate of 27.7% compared to female 
offenders who re-offended at a rate of 18.5%. Figure 8.16 shows how the rates for 
both adults and juveniles have been steady since 2002. Between 2002 and 2012, the 
proven re-offending rate for male and female offenders decreased by 2.9 and 2.8 
percentage points respectively. 
 
65 See https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/the-offender-management-community-cohort-study 
 
83
66 Adults who test positive for opiates or cocaine (without receiving a conviction or caution) are no longer 
included in the offender cohort. Further details about this change can be found in the Proven Re-
offending Statistics Bulletin, January to December 2012, which was published on 30 October 2014. The 
impact of removing this group of offenders is very small – the size of the offender cohort is reduced by 
1% and the adult re-offending rate is reduced by 0.1%. All figures are provided with these offenders 
removed so that comparisons can be made over time. However, this means that figures for 2008 to 
2010 will differ to what was previously published in the last Women and the Criminal Justice System 
publication. 

Figure 8.16: Proven re-offending rates by sex and adult/juvenile, 2002 to 2012 
 
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Proportion of offenders who re-offend 
Male adults
Female adults
Male juveniles
Female juveniles
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proven re-offending for adult offenders 
 
From 2008 to 2012, theft and robbery were the two index offence groups67 with the 
highest proportions of adult offenders who re-offended for both genders. Over the 
five year period, theft was consistently the top index offence group for males, with 
45% of offenders from this index offence group re-offending in 2012. For females this 
was lower, at 31%. Theft was the index offence group with the highest proportion of 
female offenders who re-offended for 2011 and 2012, but from 2008 to 2010, robbery 
was higher.  
 
Some index offence groups had similar re-offending proportions for both genders; 
with around one in 10 offenders re-offending within the sexual index offence group in 
2012. However, for some index offence groups, males had considerably higher re-
offending proportions than females. For example, the re-offending proportion for 
violence against the person was more than double the female proportion, with 22% of 
male offenders and only 11% of female offenders re-offending within this group. The 
male proportions for fraud offences and summary motoring offences were also more 
than double the corresponding proportions for females. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
67 The offence group classification has changed since the last version of this publication. These offence 
groups are now based on the new ONS crime classifications, which were introduced in July 2013. 
 
84

 
Figure 8.17: Proportion of adult offenders who re-offended within each index 
offence group, by sex, 2012 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Other*
Fraud
Summary Motoring
Violence Against the Person
Sexual
Summary Non-motoring
Drug
Criminal Damage and Arson
Possession of Weapons
Miscellaneous Crimes …
Public Order
Robbery
Theft
Proportion of offenders who re-offended
Males
Females
 
* Proportions based on fewer than 30 offenders are removed as they make data unreliable for 
interpretation. 
 
In general, the more previous known offences that an offender had, the more likely 
they were to re-offend. In 2012, of those with 11 or more previous offences, nearly 
half of both male and female adults re-offended. In comparison, only 9% of adult 
males with no previous offences went on to re-offend, and only 6% of adult females.  
 
For almost all index disposals in 2012, a higher proportion of male adults than female 
adults re-offended. For absolute/conditional discharges, suspended sentence orders 
and fines, the proportion of male offenders that went on to re-offend was 
approximately ten percentage points higher than the corresponding proportion for 
females. Custodial sentences had very similar re-offending proportions for males and 
females overall, but when looking more closely at a breakdown by sentence length, 
they were much more varied. Females had a slightly higher re-offending proportion 
than males for those sentenced to less than 12 months, although this was still the 
category with the highest re-offending for both genders at around 58% for both males 
and females. For those sentenced to 12 months or more68 in custody, 21% of 
females went on to re-offend, compared to 35% of males. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
85
68 The ’12 months or more’ group excludes indeterminate sentences for public protection and life 
sentence prisoners. 

Chapter 9: Practitioners 
 
Five year trends are available for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), police, 
National Offender Management Service (NOMS), Ministry of Justice (MoJ) Staff, 
Judiciary and the Magistracy. However, due to changes in the recording practices for 
the Probation Service, information on sex and ethnicity has been collected from the 
probation trusts via the NOMS Performance Hub only once every two years from 
2012 onwards. This means that data is not available on sex for 2012 and so 
comparisons can only be made with earlier years. 
 
The representation of women has varied substantially across the Criminal Justice 
System agencies ranging from as high as 72% in the Probation Service and two 
thirds of staff at the MoJ, to a quarter of officers in the Police Service and the 
Judiciary.  
 
The MoJ consists of various executive agencies including MoJ Headquarters (HQ), 
Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), Legal Aid Agency and Office 
of the Public Guardian with each agency having a higher proportion of women than 
men in their staff. In 2013, this varied between 57% at MoJ HQ to 71% at the 
HMCTS.  
 
Women have accounted for a lower proportion of all officers in the police workforce 
than men over the past five years; this was also the case for police community 
support officers (PCSOs) and special constables. However, women have consistently 
accounted for around 3 in 5 police staff69 over the past five years.  
 
Figure 9.01: Proportion of male and female staff across each CJS agency in the 
latest period  
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
MOJ Staff 
(Mar-14)
NOMS Staff 
(Mar-14)
Police 
Officer     
(Mar-14)
CPS        
(Dec-13)
Probation 
Service 
(Dec-13)
Judiciary 
(Apr-14)
Magistracy 
(Mar-14)
Proportion of staff 
Agency
Female
Male
 
In the last five years, there were slight increases in the proportion of police officer 
posts, NOMS staff, probation service staff, judges and magistrates positions 
occupied by women despite overall numbers broadly falling in this period which is 
                                                 
 
86
69 All staff employed by the police force, other than police officers, police community support officers 
(PCSOs), other designated officers and traffic wardens. 

due to a greater decline in the number of men occupying such posts over the same 
period.  
 
The judiciary has had the greatest uplift in the proportion of staff that are women over 
the past five years with a year on year increase from 21% in 2009/10 to 25% in 
2013/14. This increase has been evident across both senior70 and junior positions. 
 
The probation service is the agency with the highest proportion of staff that are 
women and this is higher now than it was five years ago with women accounting 
almost three quarters of all staff in 2013.  
 
Women were less well represented within CJS agencies at senior level positions than 
they were overall. In the latest year, women represented 18% of senior police officers 
and 28% of all officers; 52% of senior CPS staff compared to 66% of all CPS staff 
and 41% of senior civil servants in the MoJ compared with 67% of all MoJ Staff.   
 
At senior level positions, with the exception of the CPS and Probation Service, 
women were less well represented within CJS agencies than men. For the latter, the 
proportion of women has increased each year, and women now account for over half 
of all senior civil servants within the CPS.  
 
Figure 9.02: Proportion of male and female senior staff across each CJS 
agency in the latest period 
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
MOJ Staff     
(Mar-14)
Police Officer 
(Mar-14)
CPS        
(Dec-13)
Probation 
Service (Dec-13)
Judiciary     
(Apr-14)
Proportion of staff
Agency
Female
Male
 
                                                 
 
87
70 Senior positions within the judiciary include Justices of the Supreme Court, Heads of division, Lords 
Justices of Appeal and High Court Judges.