Should Police Bail Have a Time Limit?

Today the civil liberties group, Liberty, has called for a maximum limit on the time an individual can be kept on police bail.

The group has called for a change to the law given that some suspects arrested in the Metropolitan Police’s linked investigations into alleged bribes and computer hacking are approaching two years on bail without charge.

The group is calling for a six-month time limit. So the question is: should a time limit be introduced?

Police Bail

It is first helpful to identify exactly what police bail is. Police bail is the species of bail imposed by the police when they are investigating if an individual has committed a crime. The need arises for it when the police do not have sufficient evidence to formally charge an individual but consider that further investigation is necessary. The individual is released on the understanding that they will return to the police station at a later date to potentially face charges.

The police can impose conditions when they grant bail if they are necessary to ensure that the individual answers their bail (returns to the police station), does not commit offences while on bail, does not interfere with witness or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, and/or for their own protection (or, if the individual is under 17, for their own welfare or in his own interests). Conditions could include, for example, residing at a particular location, not going to a particular area, not contacting certain individuals, or a curfew.

Police bail is imposed under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Bail Act 1976. The law on bail is widely thought of as unsatisfactorily complex.

Should There be a Maximum Time Limit?

There is no maximum time limit set out in the law for how long an individual can be kept on police bail. While Liberty is calling for a six-month time limit, others have called for an even shorter limit. The Law Society, the group that represents solicitors, has called for a 28-day time limit. Should a time limit be introduced?

Bail is undoubtedly a useful tool for the police. It allows the police to conduct their investigations in the knowledge that a suspect will return to answer potential charges. Police bail, along with custody time limits, is also hugely important to the individual. It prevents an individual being detained while the police investigate if there is sufficient evidence to charge the individual formally with a crime: it protects liberty.

However, being on police bail can be a very difficult for an individual. They will be concerned and worried about the prospect of being charged with a crime, which is undoubtedly stressful. Moreover, their liberty may be restricted if they are subject to conditions. Over a prolonged period this is very likely to be detrimental to the individual’s wellbeing. When there is no maximum time limit there is no incentive for the police to conduct their investigations as efficiently and productively as possible. Instead, the police can take an unlimited amount of time.

A simple way to resolve this would be to impose a maximum time limit on police bail, which could be extended by a magistrates’ court if there is good reason. For example, there could be a maximum time limit of six-months, extendable by a magistrates’ court for an additional period (perhaps three months at a time) if there is good reason to do so. This modification would be beneficial for everyone. The police could acquire an extension of time to investigate a case if there is good reason; this recognises that some cases are very complex and take a prolonged period to investigate. It also protects the individual because they would know that in six months they will be released from bail if there is not a good reason for extending it; it encourages more efficient police investigations.

To my mind at least, it is not satisfactory that an individual can be on police bail indefinitely. The individual can be protected in a way that does not inhibit police investigations by having a maximum time limit on bail which can be extended by the courts when there is a good reason to do so.

What are your thoughts? 

Sources of Law in England and Wales: An Introduction

The aim of LawScape is to digest legal news in an accessible way. I believe it can be even more useful than that and digest the law more generally in an accessible way. That does not mean that it will now start discussing obscure points of law. Instead, it will explore interesting areas of law alongside legal news as normal.

I feel that the best place to start is to explore in a little more detail the main sources of the law in England and Wales. Since (almost) all law comes from these sources it is very helpful to understand them.

In this piece I shall identify and briefly describe the main sources of law. A more detailed article on each will follow in the coming weeks. The collection of articles will be accessible from the menu bar.

The main sources of law in England and Wales are:

-           legislation (statute law);

-           common law (judge made law); and

-           international law (in particular the law of the European Union)

Legislation

Legislation is divided into two categories: primary legislation and secondary (or delegated or subordinate) legislation.

Acts of Parliament (or statutes) are primary legislation. They are made by Parliament and are the supreme type of law. Parliament can make or unmake any law it wants without restriction.

Secondary legislation takes many forms. It is made by individuals and bodies such as the government and local authorities. An Act of Parliament grants power to an individual or body to make secondary legislation (in these circumstances the Act is known as a ‘parent’ or ‘enabling’ Act).

Most secondary legislation is in the form a Statutory Instrument. They are often called Orders, Regulations and Rules. Other secondary legislation includes Orders in Council and Byelaws.

Common Law

Common law is made by judges. Not all law is written in legislation. Common law is the body of law made up of judicial decisions. Judges can also make law when they interpret what legislation actually means. By way of an example, most of the law concerning contracts can be found in the decisions of previous cases (common law), not in legislation.

International Law

International law is the body of law made by organisations around the world that England and Wales (and normally the UK as a whole) agrees to be bound by. In the UK the main source of international law is European Union law. Another significant source of international law is the Council of Europe, which produced the European Convention on Human Rights.

International law does not have effect in the UK until is it incorporated into our law by legislation.

Conclusion

Collectively, these three sources make up almost all of our law. They often interact with each other and are often not clear. When presented with a problem, the courts must determine what law is applicable and then apply it to the facts to come to a decision.

In the coming weeks each source will be discussed in more detail.

Veils, Jurors and Justice: The Law in Summer 2013

LawScape has now returned from its summer break. The summer months are traditionally quieter in the legal world as Parliament, many of the courts, and much of the Government have a well deserved break. Some of the higher courts continue to enjoy that deserved break. However, the legal world has been anything but quiet this summertime.

Whether it is the continuing fiasco concerning legal aid, decisions about human rights, or the trial of television celebrities for sexual offences, it has been a very busy legal summer. Two of the most interesting developments for me have been the announcement that individuals up to the age of 75 will in future be able to serve on juries, and the decision that a Muslim woman on trial for witness intimidation must remove her niqab (veil) if and when she gives evidence.

Older Jurors

The announcement that those aged up to 75 will now be able to sit on juries is a welcome one. The right to be tried by our peers is one that has its foundations in the 1215 Magna Carta (the ‘Great Charter’). We are very defensive of our right to be judged by a random selection of people that represent our society. In recent years however, juries have not be able to represent the oldest members of our society: the over 70s. In the past, this group did not make up a significant proportion of the population. But we are now all living a great deal longer, so the over 70s represent a significant proportion of the population. If our jury system is to continue to produce juries that represent our society, then it must be possible to have the over 70s selected. Not only will this ensure that juries reflect modern society, but it will make use of the very great and important life experience that the over 70s have acquired. The announced change is to be commended.

The change will be effected by an amendment to the Juries Act 1974. Currently this provides that only those aged 18 to 70 may sit on a jury.

Veils in Court

This week His Honour Judge Peter Murphy decided that a female Muslim defendant charged with witness intimidation must remove her veil if and when she gives evidence. At other times, however, she may continue to be veiled.

The judge had to balance the woman’s right to express her religious beliefs (under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights) and the public interest that criminal trials are conducted in accordance with the rule of law, open justice and the adversarial nature of our trial system.

In essence, the judge held that the jury’s ability (and, to a lesser extent, the judge’s and lawyers’ abilities) to observe the defendant’s facial reactions to the questions they are asked is crucial and not to be compromised. The defendant’s evidence is crucial and when it is given the defendant must submit fully to the scrutiny of the jury. On the other hand, while a jury may observe the defendant’s reaction at other times (when they are in the dock not giving evidence) this is not sufficiently important to trump the defendant’s right to express their religion by wearing a veil. Accordingly, at other times the defendant may remain veiled.

Unsurprisingly, the decision has been controversial, with various individuals saying that the court went too far or did not go far enough. For my own part I remain undecided. In my opinion the court certainly did not go too far, it was right to order that a veil cannot be worn when a defendant gives evidence. The question is if it went far enough?

What are your thoughts?