Bail in the United Kingdom

Bail in the United Kingdom is the practice of releasing individuals from remand subject to certain conditions which are designed to enable criminal justice outcomes, primarily trials and police investigations, to be completed efficiently and effectively.

[1] The legal systems of England and Wales, Northern Ireland and of Scotland each deal with bail in similar but distinct ways.

It is common for government officials or law enforcement agents to make immigration bail decisions on behalf of the Secretary of State.

The concept of using a monetary debt to ensure individual compliance with the justice system was developed in a decentralised manner across Anglo-Saxon communities in Great Britain.

Strong statutory principles limiting the extent, nature and procedure for setting bail occurred in the 17th century during the English Civil War period.

[2] In Anglo-Saxon England, violence and feuding were a real and socially destabilising route used to correct actual or perceived wrongs.

These approaches were originally incorporated into the primitive legal system via the process of outlawing and 'hue and cry' communal vigilantism.

To combat this risk alleged wrongdoers were allowed to pay 'bail', at the exact equivalent value of their bot, in exchange for going free until the date of trial.

By the medieval era however, fear of the punishment after conviction had become so great that people were willing to abandon their securities to avoid the physical violence meted out by the courts.

[2] In order to limit escape without the use of jails, sheriffs were given powers under royal authority to hold wrongdoers in their jurisdiction until the travelling judges of the circuit courts came to the area.

The sheriffs used the bail bond system to control unimprisoned defendants awaiting trial, but in doing so corruption became widespread.

[5] The knights were refused release under the habeas corpus principles of Magna Carta, as the court found that the prerogative of the king to imprison subjects could not be overridden by the common law.

Parliament was unhappy with the substantive legal outcome, but the circumstances around how this precedent was set may also have riled contemporary onlookers.

Many historians have suggested that Charles I conspired with the Attorney General Robert Heath to manipulate the outcome so as to bolster his power to raise funds, independent of Parliament, using fear of arbitrary imprisonment.

Combatting another loophole in the system, the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 was introduced to stop excessively long delays between custody and bail hearings.

The Act makes clear the duty on sheriffs and other law officers to produce prisoners for trial hastily.

[8] Sheriff, &c. within Three Days after Service of Habeas Corpus, with the Exception of Treason and Felony, as and under the Regulations herein mentioned, to bring up the Body before the Court to which the Writ is returnable; and certify the true Causes of Imprisonment.The Bill of Rights 1689, made law at the accession of William of Orange and Mary II to the British throne, later introduced a principle of proportionality to bail by stating that "excessive bail ought not be required".

[citation needed] The Act appears to have had significant effect, despite contemporary criticism in Parliament, as the number of people released on bail before trial had increased to 25% by 1904.

[11] Nonetheless, it appears that by the 1960s the 1898 Act had achieved its goal, as Home Office research[12] found that the number of prisoners in custody due to a lack of funds for bail was very low.

The 1976 Act also nullified the recognizance system, removing the requirement of paying a specific amount of money and instead arresting defendants for failing to surrender.

Section 4 is not explicitly incorporated into the provisions affecting police bail; however, the individual parts of PACE, notably ss.

The most prominent is that it lacks a statutory framework and therefore does not incorporate the specific time limits which would apply to a person were they released on bail.

This means some people will be left without knowledge of how their case is progressing and with no timeframe for being told if they are either no longer being investigated, or being charged.

[21] As a requirement of PACE, a police officer of inspector rank or higher has the authority to release a person who has not been charged on bail.

In more complex cases a district judge (often referred to as DJ, who may be a lawyer sitting part time) may be present.

An application for bail (i.e. to be released rather than remanded in custody) is an inquisitorial process, and the bench must be satisfied there is enough relevant information available to make an adequate decision before it acts.

In this context, it means that the condition relates to a genuine (not fanciful) risk posed by the defendant, is specific and justifiable, enforceable, and effective.

[20] Exactly which exceptions from schedule 1 apply will depend on the type of offence being tried and the factual context including the defendant's previous offending, mental health, drug tests, and whether the court has been able to find substantial enough information to make an adequate bail decision.

Immigration bail applies where a person is, or is liable to be, detained under the following provisions: The authority to grant bail is given to the Secretary of State, usually the Home Secretary, and in practice applied by officials acting on behalf of the minister such as immigration or Border Force officers.

This does not apply for certain detention provisions, people detained for national security reasons, or where a person has given and not withdrawn written notice that they do not want to be referred.