[1] In a 1988 article in the Cambridge Law Journal, British legal commentator David Feldman describes the power to "bind people over to be of good behaviour or to keep the peace" as a useful and common device used in the British criminal justice system,[2] and explains the process as follows: Magistrates form the view that a person ("the principal"), who might be a person of previously unblemished reputation, is likely to breach the peace or commit criminal offences.
If he refuses, he can be imprisoned, regardless of the seriousness or triviality, lawfulness or unlawfulness, of the behaviour that originally brought him to court, perhaps as a witness.
He may also be required to find sureties, other people who are prepared to promise that they will forfeit a sum of money (say £50 each) if their principal fails to behave.
This latter use provides a flexible way to deal with cases arising out of disputes between neighbours and minor public order problems without the need for a full hearing.
[2]The origins of the binding-over power are rooted in (1) the takings of sureties of the peace, which "emerged from the peace-keeping arrangements of Anglo-Saxon law, extended by the use of the royal prerogative and royal writs" and (2) the separate device of sureties of good behaviour, which originated as a type of conditional pardon given by the king.