tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post2549905037586993805..comments2024-03-28T09:08:50.733+00:00Comments on Law and Lawyers: Police Powers - BailObiterJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-66634321371610166612016-05-27T10:41:38.379+01:002016-05-27T10:41:38.379+01:00Hey, I know that I'm posting this a LONG time ...Hey, I know that I'm posting this a LONG time after the original post, but if someone reads this could they please kindly reply? Recently on the news there was something about a suspected terrorist breaching his bail conditions (by not surrendering his passport) and subsequently failing to attend the police station as stipulated on his bail sheet.<br /><br /> From one of the earlier posts this was mentioned "Arrest can be for failure to attend the police station at the appointed time - [46A(1)] - or for breach of a bail condition - [46A(1A)]. The arrested person would then be dealt with by the police. There is normally no reference to the courts at these pre-charge stages." <br /><br />Does this mean that the police have the power of arrest after a suspect fails to attend at the police station after being granted pre-charge bail? In other words, would the police not/not need to apply for a warrant from the courts? If not though, how would the police know to arrest someone who failed to attend (for example if they stopped someone on the streets) - is there an 'internal' police system to facilitate this? <br /><br />After reading all of this information, it seems that pre-charge bail is both too lenient for those who are suspected of having committed serious offences, and too harsh for those who committed relatively lesser ones...<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-8945464853567640752014-07-26T11:24:52.542+01:002014-07-26T11:24:52.542+01:00If an uncharged suspect is bailed, is ready to att...If an uncharged suspect is bailed, is ready to attend on the stipulated date but the Police cancel the 'appointment" (usually the day before!) - this happens frequently. At that stage, in my experience, the Police will formally re-bail informing the suspect's solicitor and the suspect (the latter by post). I have seen this re-bailing go on for an eternity (over a year). But what of the situation (not unknown) for the police to inform thesolicitor that they have changed the date (yet again!) but give no re-bail date. There is no formal bail form sent. Is the suspect still on bail just by the Police simply saying the suspect is re-bailed? Local solicitors seem to think that in these cases the suspect is still on bail and any conditions apply. But I wonder if that be the case. The re-bail or variation of bail is sanctioned formally by a custody officer (separate from the investigating officer but clearly informed by him/her), a form is required - but I muse whether this formality is not just a matter of form but of substance. If no date is given for the revised attendance, no variation has been issued (formally or not). So my question is this: if a bail date has passed because of delay, and the Police 'say' that they have rebailed or will re-bail (but formally have not and given no next answering date) has the bail lapsed completely (requiring a new arrest?). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-56927886515003125742013-02-13T08:03:31.713+00:002013-02-13T08:03:31.713+00:00These powers are widely in my view abused by the p...These powers are widely in my view abused by the police. They also endorse bail conditions that frequently breach decided cases and in some cases are simply unenforceable. For example. a condition to reside at an address and present yourself to a police officer on request. Fine. The police say we will come at night. With no time band for that person to be in their house it is a 24 hour curfew. Technically, if the police come at Noon and your out you have breached it and could be arrested. More recently the prohibit access to the internet. COA cases say that this is an infringement on human rights as we get our mail via that medium, do our banking etc etc. <br />PACE always allowed a right of appeal to another Custody Officer and then an appeal to the local Magistrates and presumably from them to Higher Courts. The Government through the Criminal Procedure Rules has recently improved this procedure by allowing a direct appeal to the Court without a review by an alternative custody officer. The forms are proscribed in CPR though locally i have found that the Court prefers the Suspect to serve a copy on the Officer in Charge as well as the CPS, though this isn't a condition in CPR, however, it does make sense. I have successfully used these now on 3 occasions since the introduction of the forms last either October or November (2012) a far more regular occurrence than prior to the forms being available. Legal Aid is available to the suspect free of charge to make this application also.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-75357941098090673952011-01-07T13:54:07.782+00:002011-01-07T13:54:07.782+00:00PACE 1984 s.46A gives the police a power to arrest...PACE 1984 s.46A gives the police a power to arrest a person who has been released under police bail. Arrest can be for failure to attend the police station at the appointed time - [46A(1)] - or for breach of a bail condition - [46A(1A)]. The arrested person would then be dealt with by the police. There is normally no reference to the courts at these pre-charge stages.<br /><br />Having arrested the person, the Custody officer has to apply either PACE s.37C or s.37CA. Basically, they must either charge the person or release him again on bail with or without conditions. Release on conditional bail must be on the same conditions (if any) as before.<br /><br />As I say, all of these are POLICE powers and the courts are not normally involved.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-45217928976750536342011-01-07T11:45:06.544+00:002011-01-07T11:45:06.544+00:00This is a very interesting post and it raises a la...This is a very interesting post and it raises a large number of questions - but I shall ask for your opinion on one matter at this stage. In my view, it is difficult to envisage the circumstances in which a person should be released on CONDITIONAL bail without charge. I am not saying that this does not happen: it does. But the logic escapes me. Perhaps you have a different view? If a person, released on conditional police bail without charge, then breaches one or more of the conditions, are they brought before a magistrates court, or are they brought back to the custody officer to be dealt with? Presumably the same time limits would apply in either case? A custody officer would, presumably, only be able to vary conditions since only the court could remand in custody? As an aside, one reason for night courts in the large american cities is that the US police do not have bail powers. The Constitution requires criminal prosecutions to be speedy and public. The grant of bail is part of the process and must, therefore, be both public and speedy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com