When not granting bail, the police must bring the defendant to a Magistrates Court at first possible opportunity. If the magistrates refuse bail, only further application can be made to magistrate, unless a change of circumstances arises. An appeal can be made to the judge at a Crown Court.
When deciding bail, four factors are considered. The nature or seriousness of the offence, previous records of the defendant turning up to bail, the defendants character and past record with associations and community ties, and finally the strength of the evidence against the defendant.
In terrorism, bail won’t be granted to foreign citizens who are suspected of being involved in terrorist activity and they can be attained without trial. When this occurs there is no right to bail.
Restrictions can also apply to adult drug users. If tested positive for Class A drugs or possession / possession to supply Class A drugs, or if substantial grounds that misuse of Class A contributed to offence or that the offence was motivated wholly or partly due to intended misuse of drug. There can also be restricted bail if the defendant has refused to agree to participate in an assessment or follow-up in relation to his dependency upon or propensity to misuse Class A drugs.
- Discuss whether the criteria used by the police or the courts in deciding whether or not to grant bail for a serious offence is satisfactory
When granting bail, it is important to balance the conflicting interests between statutory presumption and the need to protect the public. This is to say that it is important to note that the defendant is presumed innocent at this stage and entitled to his liberty, against the public interest to be protected from potentially dangerous criminals.
This is usually answered by conditional bail with restrictions, but it is not the best solution to this problem. Conditions can be imposed such as sureties, forcing a residence in a bail hostel or passport resignation, but it is frequently argued that if a criminal is serious about committing another offence for any reason, none of these conditions would stop them and perhaps the only real solution would to be remanded in custody awaiting trial.
People may worry about bail that even criminals awaiting a trial for an indictable offence may be granted bail, after even serving a custodial sentence for such an offence. This raises serious questions whether police / courts are too lenient in the first place. In 2000 statistics showed that 12% of those bailed to appear at court failed to do so.
The grounds for refusing bail may be too broad. If suspected criminals should be refused bail when there is a suspicion they may fail to surrender, would commit a further offence or interfere with witnesses, then why are there plenty of statistics showing that still, people are not turning up to trials, people are still re-offending, etc.
However, it is argued that too many people are refused bail. Recent statistics indicate that 20% of those in prison and people who have not even been tried yet. If more decisions are made to remand, then more people are kept in custody who may not have abused their bail, which leads to more people losing their liberty and their jobs and home lives, which will continue to aid against prison overpopulation, even with offenders who have not been charged yet. Nevertheless, this can also be argued that in 1998 statistics show that 20% of defendants on bail commit at least one further offence and it is safer to have prisons being populated rather than potentially very dangerous criminals being let free until trial amongst society.
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 states that the presumption in favour of granting bail is removed when a person is charged with an offence (that can be tried in the Crown Court) while on bail for another offence. This is an attempt to keep a balance between the suspected criminals civil rights and the protection of the public.