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? 

Jimmy Savile: Declaring Guilt

Today a report authored by the Metropolitan Police and the NSPCC has been released, detailing the years of abuse by Jimmy Savile. The report, ‘Giving Victims a Voice’, documents a pattern of offending that is likely to have spanned 50 years, possible because Savile ‘was hiding in plain sight’. It explains that 450 people came forward with information relating to Savile leading to, currently, 214 formally recorded crimes that were committed at locations including the BBC, hospitals and schools.

What is interesting about the report is its declaration that because the complainants' (who mostly are not known to one another) accounts ‘paint a compelling picture of widespread sexual abuse by a predatory sexual offender’ they are referred to as ‘victims’ and their evidence is not being treated as unproven allegations. Presumably, therefore, their evidence is being treated as proven. Essentially then, the authors of the report seem to be saying that although a criminal prosecution is impossible as the suspect is now deceased, we can nevertheless be sure that he was guilty of a number of crimes. I personally find this conclusion concerning. We only declare a person guilty of a crime following a trial of the evidence, when we are sure that the person is guilty. At such a trial the defendant is represented, evidence is challenged and various safeguards are in place, such as restrictions on the type of evidence which can be used. That is what makes the process of finding somebody guilty fair. As Savile is dead he cannot challenge the evidence against him. We cannot have a trial of the evidence and cannot therefore be sure of his guilt. That is not to say that I believe him to be innocent. It seems to me from all that has been reported that there is a very high probability that Savile was guilty of a number of appalling crimes. But there is a huge difference between declaring something highly probable and declaring something proven. In a democratic society we can only declare criminal conduct proven following a trial of evidence. As this has not been possible in this case I do not believe it is correct to treat the allegations as proven.

This raises the question of how we should deal with criminal allegations against a person who has died. One way of course is, as here, to have an investigation and then a report setting out its findings. But such a report should not declare guilt in the same way that a criminal trial can. The problem with this method is that supporters of the deceased may feel that there has been an injustice to the deceased as there has been no examination of the evidence that is available. An alternative way, therefore, could be to introduce law allowing for a new posthumous trial procedure. Such a procedure could involve the appointment of an advocate to represent the interests of the deceased and then an examination of the evidence. Of course, we could never be sure of guilt as there would often be much evidence that only the deceased could give. But we may be able to say that there is a high probability of guilt. Accordingly, such a procedure could allow us to find a person innocent or make a ‘declaration of probable guilt’ in relation to them. At least in this way we attempt to assess the evidence in the way that we do at a traditional trial and equally balance the interests of both any alleged victims and the deceased and their supporters.

I imagine that the type of procedure described above is unlikely to ever exist. But surely we need an alternative way of dealing with such cases; can it ever really be acceptable to declare criminal allegations proven without a trial? What are your thoughts?

The report is available here: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/news-and-views/our-news/child-protection-news/13-01-11-yewtree-report/yewtree-report-pdf_wdf93652.pdf