EIGHT violent criminals were charged or convicted with murder, rape or another further serious offence while under supervision in the region last year, it was revealed yesterday.

One offender, on Teesside, was under the most rigorous monitoring by the Probation Service and other agencies, after being assessed as among the “critical few” – those posing the highest risk of harm to the public.

Meanwhile, 172 registered sex and violent offenders in the North-East and North Yorkshire were returned to prison for breaching the terms of their release licences.

And the annual figures revealed that 3,042 criminals were being supervised under multi-agency public protection arrangements (Mappas) – of which 2,093 were sex offenders.

But a row broke out over the scale of serious re-offending, after the Ministry of Justice admitted this year’s figures excluded those charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Across England, in 2008-9, the change helped reduce the number charged with a serious offence – carrying a jail term of at least 14 years – from 79 to 48. Of those 48, four were in Northumbria, including two sex offenders. All were at “level two” supervision, a step below those considered most dangerous.

None was in County Durham, while in North Yorkshire, one level two offender was charged, with a further two convicted of a serious offence, having been charged during the previous 12 months.

The Teesside case also involved someone charged last year, but convicted in the past 12 months, said Hazel Willoughby, director of public protection for Durham and Teesside.

Alan Duncan, the Tories’ justice spokesman, said there had been increases in the number of serious further offences committed by the most severe offenders and the number returned to prison.

Last night’s Panorama programme revealed that at least 125 re-offences were excluded from yesterday’s official Government figures.

They were offences suspected of being committed by sexual and violent criminals placed in the lowest tier – level one – who receive far less strict supervision.

Harry Fletcher, of the National Association of Probation Officers, blamed a lack of resources, saying: “There aren’t enough police officers or probation officers to cover the cases that we’ve got.”