3 Introducing a time limit on bail
16. There are no current time limits on pre-charge
bail, and there is no limit on the number of times a suspect can
be re-bailed. Individuals can spend months, or in some cases years,
on bail, not knowing about the investigation and awaiting a decision
over which they have no influence, while witnesses' memories and
other evidence degrade.[29]
Introducing a time limit could create an incentive for the police
to carry out more thorough investigations before deciding to make
an arrest, and use police bail less.[30]
17. We agree that an initial time limit for bail
should be introduced. This would not be an absolute time limit,
no one would be able to be released because they could not be
charged in time. The time limit would require the police to explain
the reasons for the investigation taking how long it was taking.
It would reduce uncertainty for those involved, and encourage
the police to carry out investigations in a timely fashion.
A 28-day limit on bail
18. The Government has proposed an initial time limit
of 28 days, beyond which bail would only be extended in exceptional
circumstances, or in particular circumstances that might be set
out in either the legislation or in regulation. Paul Gambaccini
said he would "enthusiastically support" a 28 day limit.[31]
Conversely, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) response to the
consultation said 28 days would be "wholly inappropriate
and unworkable" and that it was concerned the police would
send files prematurely to meet the time deadline, resulting in
the CPS having to send the files back asking for further investigative
work.[32] Similarly,
Chris Eyre of ACPO thought that "28 days would be unhelpful
as a limit."[33]
Chief Constable Eyre said the police were already reducing the
inappropriate use of bail through the application of a necessity
test at the point where bail was applied and a proportionality
test about the time period for bail and the conditions applied,
depending on the circumstances.[34]
19. We recommend that there should be a time limit
on bail and agree with the proposal for an initial time limit
of 28 days.
Exemptions
20. It
is recognised that some investigations take a long time. There
are understandable reasons why the collection of evidence is not
straightforward, for example in complex fraud cases, cases involving
gathering evidence from overseas, some cases involving extensive
and complex forensic evidence, cases involving the retrieval of
digital evidence, or evidence to be retrieved from local and central
government departments.[35]
Exemptions could be made for such complicated cases, possibly
according to the type of offence, or the exceptional nature of
that case compared to others of that offence. The CPS said there
would be benefits in exempting certain classes of casework that
are complex, such as serious and complex fraud, non-recent child
sexual exploitation and counter-terrorism prosecutions.[36]
The police would have to apply to the magistrates' court
for the exemption to apply.[37]
21. Any application for an extension to pre-charge
bail on exceptional grounds should be made to the magistrates'
courts.
Decision to re-bail
22. Current practice around re-bail lacks transparency
and accountability. The CPS response to the Home Office consultation
said:
Much of the mischief with police bail and its
conditions is that they are seemingly not periodically reviewed
and the suspect is left in limbo with often little information
as to the progress of the investigation, other than the fact that
their bail has been extended.[38]
23. The Home Office proposal for a time limit of
28 days is not an absolute limit. The suspect could still be re-bailed
at 28 days, and the review at 28 days would provide the opportunity
to reduce that sense of limbo. The two proposed models are illustrated
in the table below. In both Model 1 and Model 2, the decision
to extend bail after 28 days would be made by the police, but
by someone independent of the investigation and at least the rank
of an Inspector. The options differ at three months, where the
decision to re-bail is reviewed by the police, a Chief Superintendent
(Model 2), or the Magistrates' Court (Model 1).
| Cumulative Total Period from 'Relevant Time'
| Model 1 Bail
Authoriser/Reviewer
| Model 2 Bail
Authoriser/Reviewer
|
| First Bail period of 28 days
| Inspector
|
| Extension up to 3 months |
Magistrates' Court
| Chief Superintendent
|
| Extension up to 12 months (3 months per extension)
| | Magistrates' Court
|
Beyond 12 months
(3 months per extension)
| Crown Court
|
24. The decision to re-bail could be reviewed again at three month
intervals, in both options by the Magistrates' Courts, until 12
months.[39] At this point,
any further extension would be for three months, but the authorisation
would need to be sought from the Crown Court. The CPS preferred
Model 2, as it would place less of an additional burden on the
courts. Kate Goold supported Model 1, as it introduced judicial
oversight earlier, but she did agree that review by a senior police
officer, independent of the investigation, would be an improvement
on the current situation. She said it would be "clearly impossible"
for every investigation to be resolved within 28 days. Therefore,
she supported a 28 day limit, reviewed at first by a superintendent,
followed by periodic review by magistrates at three months, and
by the Crown Court at twelve months.[40]
Chris Eyre said that ACPO's view was that the extension of bail
should be decided by the police until six months—only 2%
of arrests result in a person being on bail for more than six
months—and after six months the review should be before
a magistrate.[41]
25. The consultation
sets out what the reviewing officer, magistrate or judge would
have to consider when deciding if to allow bail: reasonable grounds
to suspect the person of committing the offence, the need for
further investigation, that the investigation is being conducted
diligently and expeditiously, and that bail remains necessary
(e.g. to prevent the suspect from interfering with witnesses).
It also said that if the law on pre-charge bail were changed,
then guidance could be issued as to how the review might consider
the conditions of bail. There would be no recourse to appeal the
decision at any review, except by way of judicial review.
26. The review should not become a rubber stamping
exercise, the onus should be on the police to persuade the court
that a further period of bail is necessary and proportionate.
We recommend the decision to re-bail at three months should be
on application to a magistrates' court. In the small proportion
of cases where the police seek to extend pre-charge bail beyond
six months, the application for re-bail should be to the Crown
Court.
27. It is important that the review process enables
the bail subject to challenge the proposal for further bail, and
to receive information as to progress in the investigation against
them.
29 Kate Goold written evidence Back
30
Q 56 Back
31
Q 18 Back
32
CPS Response to the Home Office's Consultation on Police Bail Back
33
Q 67 Back
34
Q 67 Back
35
CPS Response to the Home Office's Consultation on Police Bail Back
36
CPS Response to the Home Office's Consultation on Police Bail Back
37
"An application to the magistrates' court would be required
for the exemption to apply, although where it were sought because
an investigation was of a listed offence, it should be capable
of being dealt with on the papers (i.e. without an oral hearing)." Back
38
CPS Response to the Home Office's Consultation on Police Bail Back
39
Section 127(1) Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 states that summary
offences must be charged within 6 months Back
40
Q 24, Qq 44-45 Back
41
Q 92 Back
| 
