Reform the Bail Act 1976

I believe that the following changes should be made to the Bail Act 1976: no person should be remanded into custody for a non-imprisonable offence under any circumstances, there should be a 28 day time restriction imposed on any remand into custody for breach of bail conditions, no defendant should be remanded into custody for a period exceeding the half maximum custodial sentence for the offence or 24 months (whichever comes sooner) under any circumstances. I also believe that any days spent on remand in a psychiatric hospital or similar treatment facility should count towards time served and that any days spent on remand should be deducted from both the custodial and licence portions of any custodial sentence imposed should the court subsequently impose such a sentence.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that the following changes should be made to the Bail Act 1976: no person should be remanded into custody for a non-imprisonable offence under any circumstances, there should be a 28 day time restriction imposed on any remand into custody for breach of bail conditions, no defendant should be remanded into custody for a period exceeding the half maximum custodial sentence for the offence or 24 months (whichever comes sooner) under any circumstances. I also believe that any days spent on remand in a psychiatric hospital or similar treatment facility should count towards time served and that any days spent on remand should be deducted from both the custodial and licence portions of any custodial sentence imposed should the court subsequently impose such a sentence.

No Offence committed but charged with breach of bail.

I'm sure I'm not the only person in this country to help Police with their enquiries and be placed on bail only to have no further action taken,but still taken to court and prosecuted for breach of that bail.Where there is no charge made against a person,surely they shouldn't be prosecuted for an offence that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for that,now,non-existant charge.In cases where enquiries result in a person having no action taken against them,then that should be the end of it,charging them for breach of bail afterwards seems petty.It should be no charge,no bail offence.

Why is this idea important?

I'm sure I'm not the only person in this country to help Police with their enquiries and be placed on bail only to have no further action taken,but still taken to court and prosecuted for breach of that bail.Where there is no charge made against a person,surely they shouldn't be prosecuted for an offence that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for that,now,non-existant charge.In cases where enquiries result in a person having no action taken against them,then that should be the end of it,charging them for breach of bail afterwards seems petty.It should be no charge,no bail offence.

Only courts, not the police, should be able to set bail conditions

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows a policeman to set bail conditions on a person who they have arrested, without even taking them to a police station.

Clearly it is outrageous that a policeman can arrest someone (at a protest for example) and then make up whatever bail conditions they like (leave the area, don't go to Manchester, don't speak to those 4 people) before releasing the person in the street.

Going further back, it was the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which allowed the police to set bail conditions at a police station when releasing someone they had arrested.

I think it's wrong that the police can restrict a person's freedom in this way. It should be for a court to set bail conditions, where the suspect's lawyer can argue on their client's behalf that the conditions are too stringent and unnecessary , and the conditions should be no more than are necessary to prevent the investigation and subsequent proceedings being interfered with (IE to stop people intimidating witnesses or repeating the alleged criminal behaviour whilst waiting to be prosecuted).

Why is this idea important?

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows a policeman to set bail conditions on a person who they have arrested, without even taking them to a police station.

Clearly it is outrageous that a policeman can arrest someone (at a protest for example) and then make up whatever bail conditions they like (leave the area, don't go to Manchester, don't speak to those 4 people) before releasing the person in the street.

Going further back, it was the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which allowed the police to set bail conditions at a police station when releasing someone they had arrested.

I think it's wrong that the police can restrict a person's freedom in this way. It should be for a court to set bail conditions, where the suspect's lawyer can argue on their client's behalf that the conditions are too stringent and unnecessary , and the conditions should be no more than are necessary to prevent the investigation and subsequent proceedings being interfered with (IE to stop people intimidating witnesses or repeating the alleged criminal behaviour whilst waiting to be prosecuted).