There has been a bit of huffing and puffing about the (possible) Jihadi star of a grotesque snuff movie, who jumped bail to go to the Middle East a year or two back. Of course some will ask why he was on bail, but there seems to be no realisation that the law prescribes a right to bail . Every JP is aware of the exceptions, which, simply put, amount to a substantial fear that the defendant will abscond, interfere with witnesses, or commit further offences.
The commenters in our more thick-ear newspapers, seem to prefer the idea of locking up anyone who finds himself under suspicion. Quite apart from the principle of incarcerating the unconvicted, what would that do to our swelling prison population?
I'm not sure the public disgust matches the media's. However questions I've been asked today:1. do you normally allow a week to hand in a passport (I only recall using that requirement once and it was in the persons property). 2. If someone fails to meet a bail condition how long before the police take action? And is a letter a month after appropriate follow up for a missed condition and no answer at the address?
ReplyDelete3. If there is a fear of absconding do you normally make them sign on at a police station daily / weekly? (do we think that works?) 4. Do police have a right to force entry at a bail address without seeking a warrant if there is no answer? 5. If you perceive a risk of absconding so high to remove a passport what other measures, short of custody, are available to prevent vanishing in the UK.?
Can you confiscate passports when people are bailed?
ReplyDeleteYes, if that was made a condition of bail.
DeleteMeantime there is a difference between police bail and court bail. As I understand it, the individual who gives rise to this topic was on police bail.
The man in question was on police bail and therefore had not been before the courts or been charged with any offence. Sometimes police bail is used in a scattergun way while they try an isolate the offender(s) from a large number of potential suspects. In the hurly-burly of a police custody area it's possible that procedures might be less scrupulously followed than in the formal orderliness of a magistrates' court.
DeleteIn my experience, confiscating passport and travel documents is very unusual and marks a really serious fear that the accused will shoot off somewhere remote and never be seen again. Also in my experience, the person is not released until a friend or relative surrenders the documents to court on their behalf - even if it means an overnight stay in custody.
I am a serving DC. Police bail is toothless, it only really works on those who don't know the system. As if a person breaches it, sure we can arrest them but often the investigation is still on going and we don't yet have enough evidence to charge them, then what? With a max (with exceptions) of 24 hours to hold them, we have to let them go again.
ReplyDeleteCourt bail (post charge) is better as we arrest them for breaches and put them before the court and they can send them to prison to await trial. However it's still open to the court to allow them out on bail again and many do (sometimes rightly......sometimes wrongly).
Very good post, serving DC
DeleteIn this case, as in so many, very easy to be wise after the event!
"....it only really works on those who don't know the system."
DeleteThis fits in with my general impression (as a law-abiding member of the public with minimal contact or experience with the police or courts).
The CJS is only effective against the law-abiding public. Career criminals are not frightened of the law, the police or the courts.
By the way, I don't believe the stories that crime is falling and is lower than it used to be. I just think people don't report it as much as they used to because there's no point.
The British Crime Survey which provides stats on crime does not rely on crime being reported. It surveys the public to discover there experience.
DeleteGood to have your input, thanks.
ReplyDeleteAs you know, there is nothing automatic about being remanded in custody for breach of bail. It all turns on the circumstances and the court's decisions will always be open to question by someone.
The court's focus is on how to secure compliance with the bail conditions. This may be served by varying the existing conditions or imposing additional conditions. If the court feels that there are no conditions that it could impose that would address their concerns, then a remand is inevitable.
I think that most magistrates will agree that considering a bail application can be one of the most difficulty and time-consuming things we do, and we will often retire to consider it rather than decide on the bench. We are, after all, deciding whether or not to deprive the defendant (or offender if a guilty plea has been made) of their liberty.
ReplyDeleteJust once in 10 years have I been on a bench which after 30 minutes' deliberation decided that stringent bail conditions (residence, daily reporting, no contact, not to go to, etc) would meet the risks, only for the prosecutor to jump up and announce that she was appealing it. This was on a Friday, which meant that the defendant was remanded in custody until the appeal could be brought before the Crown Court on Monday morning.
I have exactly the same single experience once in 10 years.
DeleteWell don't leave us hanging. What happened at the appeal?
DeleteI wish we knew! We never hear appeal results even though we have been asking for years. Justices are apparently not considered to be worth the effort of communicating with by the powers-that-be.
DeleteYou can get the result of an appeal if you remember the details, wait a few weeks, and then ask one of the legal advisors to check on the system what happened to the appeal. I had an appeal against sentence and a CPS bail appeal on the same day. The sentence appeal was dropped just before it was due on and the CPS dropped their bail appeal later in the day we gave bail.
DeleteJaguar 7: It will have been Tuesday. next working day but one. I have heard that CPS don't do it if it would mean opening a building between Christmas and New Year - too expensive, don't you know?
ReplyDeleteI am sorry what a crock. He was arrest some 4-5 times for offences under the terrorism act 2000. Being a member and also supporting the banned group Al-Muhajiroun (which was banned in 2010) and various other groups. Couple that with who he was arrested with there was more than enough evidence and SO15 and the Custody sergeant have failed miserably here.
ReplyDeleteThere was only one decision here and that was whether they could produce him that day or alternatively the next available court date after being denied bail. I am also quite sure that he would have been denied bail a mags too if he was produced.
Being arrested and being charged with an (or more) offence are not the same thing. You can only bring someone before a court when they have been charged. Charging would have to be agreed with CPS.
DeleteWithout any evidence, are you so sure bail would've been denied? Even murderes have a right to bail unless the bail act is satisfied.
Biscuit.
I am appalled at the lack of knowledge of the news media. Or their blatant disregard for that knowledge in their desire to whip up public feeling.
DeleteThe individual involved had not been charged with any offence, he had been arrested and interviewed, then released as there was insufficient evidence to charge him. The release was on police bail with conditions. There was no evidence at that time that he had committed any crime. But that would interfere with a good justice bashing story.
Speaking in defence of the tabloid editors (!), I'm sure that they only want the courts to refuse bail to those who are guilty, or who may commit an offence at a later date.
ReplyDeleteIf the courts can't work out who falls into these categories without going to all the trouble of hearing the facts, that's not the editors' problem...
Sadly, since the cuts we have not been able to afford to run, maintain or update the Crystal Ball that we used to rely on to help us foretell what people would do in the future, and to peek into what they did in the past.
DeleteSeriously, Nik, do you really think that? 'Work out who's guilty without hearing the facts?' How exactly do you think courts work? I suppose you're the expert at flip-a-coin verdicts...
Delete@Nik - your sarcasm wasn't lost on everyone :)
ReplyDeleteI thought bail for those charged with murder was withdrawn in Jack Straw's time, following a well-publicised case
ReplyDeleteMagistrates can't give bail on a murder charge but a crown court judge still can.
ReplyDelete