How does police bail work?
Discussion
I have another question about the judicial process. Obviously there are two types of bail, court bail and police bail. court bail I can understand, you may be let out on bail until your hearing with certain conditions but those conditions are set by the judge who will have the final say on what happens to you if you are ultimately found guilty and the bail conditions will almost certainly relate to the case, like don't go near the person you have allegedly tried to murder, that sort of thing.
But how does police bail work, say you get arrested on what could be a trumped up charge, maybe something malicious or whatever, the police don't charge you there and then as they don't currently have any evidence, yet they get to impose conditions on you of their choosing without it going anywhere near a judge or any sort of legally qualified person.
To keep it light hearted, supposing you finish work at 9PM and get to the local Tesco and are able to buy all the reduced items, but your copper neighbour doesn't finish work until 9.30 and by the time he gets to Tesco everything is gone, what's to stop the coppers arresting you for walking on the cracks on the pavement and then bailing you whilst they "investigate" but the condition of the bail is to stay away from Tesco.
I know that's a daft scenario but it seems some police forces are arresting people that film certain situations in town centres (usually the situation occurs in the first place due to a lack of policing) and then plaster it all over social media, the bail conditions for all of them seem to centre around being banned from the area they are filming in.
How do the police get to impose restrictions on you before you are even charged with anything? I don't understand and what happens if you ignore them, is it then straight to prison without trial? Seems bizarre, what's stopping the police from simply saying you cant leave your house at any time whatsoever and then when you do because you are starving they then arrest you for breaking the bail condition.
But how does police bail work, say you get arrested on what could be a trumped up charge, maybe something malicious or whatever, the police don't charge you there and then as they don't currently have any evidence, yet they get to impose conditions on you of their choosing without it going anywhere near a judge or any sort of legally qualified person.
To keep it light hearted, supposing you finish work at 9PM and get to the local Tesco and are able to buy all the reduced items, but your copper neighbour doesn't finish work until 9.30 and by the time he gets to Tesco everything is gone, what's to stop the coppers arresting you for walking on the cracks on the pavement and then bailing you whilst they "investigate" but the condition of the bail is to stay away from Tesco.
I know that's a daft scenario but it seems some police forces are arresting people that film certain situations in town centres (usually the situation occurs in the first place due to a lack of policing) and then plaster it all over social media, the bail conditions for all of them seem to centre around being banned from the area they are filming in.
How do the police get to impose restrictions on you before you are even charged with anything? I don't understand and what happens if you ignore them, is it then straight to prison without trial? Seems bizarre, what's stopping the police from simply saying you cant leave your house at any time whatsoever and then when you do because you are starving they then arrest you for breaking the bail condition.
Yep, Police can place bail conditions on you before any charges, eg domestic abuse allegations, stay away from complainant, not to visit their address etc, I'm sure most people arrested and under investigation for alleged offences are happy that Police are aloowed to grant conditions as the alternative options include remaining in custody, and a Custody Sergeant is certainly a legally qualified person so very unlikely that the scenarios you give would occur, don't worry you live in the UK not some oppresive foreign Police state. :-)
I have a mate who has lived with me for the last 15 months, his bail conditions ran for 12, basically couldn t go home (unless agreed by the police to access belongings and under strict conditions) or contact his wife & kids.
He was left homeless, had 30 mins to pack a bag no formal help or support. Fortunately I was in a position to help.
Bail conditions were kept to by the letter, this was essential for his defence. When he was faced with a potential breach he declared it straight away (likely set up by his soon to be Ex).
In this case there was nothing light hearted. But all sorted now.
He was left homeless, had 30 mins to pack a bag no formal help or support. Fortunately I was in a position to help.
Bail conditions were kept to by the letter, this was essential for his defence. When he was faced with a potential breach he declared it straight away (likely set up by his soon to be Ex).
In this case there was nothing light hearted. But all sorted now.
Edited by r159 on Monday 9th November 20:12
r159 said:
I have a mate who has lived with me for the last 15 months, his bail conditions ran for 12, basically couldn t go home (unless agreed by the police to access belongings and under strict conditions) or contact his wife & kids.
He was left homeless, had 30 mins to pack a bag no formal help or support. Fortunately I was in a position to help.
Bail conditions were kept to by the letter, this was essential for his defence. When he was faced with a potential breach he declared it straight away (likely set up by his soon to be Ex).
In this case there was nothing light hearted. But all sorted now.
Was that after charges though, I also had a mate that was arrested for something and then released pending further evidence, his bail was unconditional but he had to keep going back to the police station every so often until it was eventually "NFA'd". From what I understand is they have 24 hrs to either charge or release you so if they only hold you for say 12 hrs at the station they have a further 12 hrs to have you keep coming back to the station only to be told come back in another month, the clock only ticks from when you are on the premises I believe. This could go on for months and months if they want to keep the bail conditions going until they eventually get bored of it.He was left homeless, had 30 mins to pack a bag no formal help or support. Fortunately I was in a position to help.
Bail conditions were kept to by the letter, this was essential for his defence. When he was faced with a potential breach he declared it straight away (likely set up by his soon to be Ex).
In this case there was nothing light hearted. But all sorted now.
Edited by r159 on Monday 9th November 20:12
Kevin-2g5x2 said:
Yep, Police can place bail conditions on you before any charges, eg domestic abuse allegations, stay away from complainant, not to visit their address etc, I'm sure most people arrested and under investigation for alleged offences are happy that Police are aloowed to grant conditions as the alternative options include remaining in custody, and a Custody Sergeant is certainly a legally qualified person so very unlikely that the scenarios you give would occur, don't worry you live in the UK not some oppresive foreign Police state. :-)
They can only keep you in custody for 24 hrs though pre charges, unless its something very serious and they get extra time, letting someone out on bail could be restrictive to the defendant for months and months with the case going nowhere whereas if they kept you in custody they would either have to put up or shut up.Surely we want the police to be able to impose bail conditions?
If someone is arrested for shoplifting from the same store they have shoplifted from previously, and the likelihood is they will shoplift from there again yet the police need just a bit more evidence to charge (CCTV, witness statement etc), then we don't really want the police simply releasing them without any conditions.
Thankfully the custody Sgt can impose conditions for them not to go in that store, or in that area. Clearly they can choose to break those conditions, but that can then lead to being arrested again and maybe remanded in custody until their court date.
If someone is arrested for shoplifting from the same store they have shoplifted from previously, and the likelihood is they will shoplift from there again yet the police need just a bit more evidence to charge (CCTV, witness statement etc), then we don't really want the police simply releasing them without any conditions.
Thankfully the custody Sgt can impose conditions for them not to go in that store, or in that area. Clearly they can choose to break those conditions, but that can then lead to being arrested again and maybe remanded in custody until their court date.
for your generosity.Police bail is a safeguarding tool essentially. When someone is arrested, police have 24 hours to investigate, interview and then either charge or NFA. In many cases this is not enough time for one reason or another eg a person arrested after an online “paedophile hunter sting” who’s computers have all been seized and now need to be examined - this can take weeks/months.
If the suspicion is there that the person did indeed commit the offence, more time can be gained to fully investigate the offence(s) through use of bail. Conditions are put in place to protect the victim in the meantime - not to attend their address, or contact them by any means, for example. These conditions can be recommended by the investigating officer with knowledge of the case but are authorised by a custody sergeant, who is certainly legally qualified.
Your concern about “straight to jail without trial” in the case of broken police bail conditions is unjustified. In many cases the suspect won’t even be rearrested. The issue with arresting someone who’s broken their police bail conditions is that they return to the cell and the ORIGINAL 24 hour clock continues to tick, with a “bonus” 3 hours added.
So if our paedophile was arrested late one night, drunk, bedded down in custody overnight and interviewed in the morning, investigated during the day and bailed after lunch, they may have spent 18 hours in custody. An extra 3 means 9 hours now remain on the clock and now they must be charged or NFA’d. If their computers are still in the queue for the digital people to examine, the evidence will simply not be available and so they will simply be released without charge. So in many cases arresting someone for breaching their police bail conditions just torpedoes the case against them.
What will offen happen instead is that a statement is made detailing the breach of their bail conditions which will be added to the to remand them in custody once/if they are finally charged.
Of course, if any further substantive offences are committed during the time they breach their bail, they can be arrested for those and a new 24 hour clock is granted separately.
If the suspicion is there that the person did indeed commit the offence, more time can be gained to fully investigate the offence(s) through use of bail. Conditions are put in place to protect the victim in the meantime - not to attend their address, or contact them by any means, for example. These conditions can be recommended by the investigating officer with knowledge of the case but are authorised by a custody sergeant, who is certainly legally qualified.
Your concern about “straight to jail without trial” in the case of broken police bail conditions is unjustified. In many cases the suspect won’t even be rearrested. The issue with arresting someone who’s broken their police bail conditions is that they return to the cell and the ORIGINAL 24 hour clock continues to tick, with a “bonus” 3 hours added.
So if our paedophile was arrested late one night, drunk, bedded down in custody overnight and interviewed in the morning, investigated during the day and bailed after lunch, they may have spent 18 hours in custody. An extra 3 means 9 hours now remain on the clock and now they must be charged or NFA’d. If their computers are still in the queue for the digital people to examine, the evidence will simply not be available and so they will simply be released without charge. So in many cases arresting someone for breaching their police bail conditions just torpedoes the case against them.
What will offen happen instead is that a statement is made detailing the breach of their bail conditions which will be added to the to remand them in custody once/if they are finally charged.
Of course, if any further substantive offences are committed during the time they breach their bail, they can be arrested for those and a new 24 hour clock is granted separately.
Do you not think this system is open to abuse though, this seems to be the case with these "auditor" type people that film the mayhem in city centres all seem to have bail conditions preventing them from visiting city centres. its happened to several youtubers now from what I can see. It also seems to have happened recently to someone who was filming the damage caused to the HMO's in and around Salford. He was putting video's about the damaged HMO's on Facebook and loads of people were watching them. The police raided his house, confiscated all his media stuff and lo and behold bailed him with provisions he doesn't post anything on facebook and now has a curfew. The bail conditions don't protect anyone they just stop him posting about the HMO's
The police could do something about all the mayhem and destruction being filmed and posted but it seems instead they have chose to stop the public finding out about such stuff, so in the police's eyes the problem no longer exists.
The police could do something about all the mayhem and destruction being filmed and posted but it seems instead they have chose to stop the public finding out about such stuff, so in the police's eyes the problem no longer exists.
Frane Selak said:
Do you not think this system is open to abuse though, this seems to be the case with these "auditor" type people that film the mayhem in city centres all seem to have bail conditions preventing them from visiting city centres. its happened to several youtubers now from what I can see. It also seems to have happened recently to someone who was filming the damage caused to the HMO's in and around Salford. He was putting video's about the damaged HMO's on Facebook and loads of people were watching them. The police raided his house, confiscated all his media stuff and lo and behold bailed him with provisions he doesn't post anything on facebook and now has a curfew. The bail conditions don't protect anyone they just stop him posting about the HMO's
The police could do something about all the mayhem and destruction being filmed and posted but it seems instead they have chose to stop the public finding out about such stuff, so in the police's eyes the problem no longer exists.
Any system is open to abuse - that’s the nature of life. There are however plenty of safeguards built in. The suspect’s solicitor can, for example, raise concerns/object to bail conditions. Each and every bail condition proposed by the investigating officer must be separately and adequately justified - in writing - on the appropriate form. This is obviously auditable, disclosable in courts proceedings and transparent. The police could do something about all the mayhem and destruction being filmed and posted but it seems instead they have chose to stop the public finding out about such stuff, so in the police's eyes the problem no longer exists.
There was a movement 7 or 8 years ago to reduce the use of police bail as some found it oppressive or draconian. The presumption was changed to the new concept of RUI (Release Under Investigation) - essentially bail, but with no time limit and no conditions. The police ane still investigating but the suspect is essentially released and subject to non conditions whatsoever. Instead they found that without the time limits, investigations dragged on for ages and ages, with suspects unable to get any closure on their case and victims were left unprotected from further offences.
This has recently been changed back so the presumption has changed back away from RUI towards the use of bail. But there must be a justification was to why RUI is not adequate and why bail conditions are required.
Frane Selak said:
r159 said:
I have a mate who has lived with me for the last 15 months, his bail conditions ran for 12, basically couldn t go home (unless agreed by the police to access belongings and under strict conditions) or contact his wife & kids.
He was left homeless, had 30 mins to pack a bag no formal help or support. Fortunately I was in a position to help.
Bail conditions were kept to by the letter, this was essential for his defence. When he was faced with a potential breach he declared it straight away (likely set up by his soon to be Ex).
In this case there was nothing light hearted. But all sorted now.
Was that after charges though, I also had a mate that was arrested for something and then released pending further evidence, his bail was unconditional but he had to keep going back to the police station every so often until it was eventually "NFA'd". From what I understand is they have 24 hrs to either charge or release you so if they only hold you for say 12 hrs at the station they have a further 12 hrs to have you keep coming back to the station only to be told come back in another month, the clock only ticks from when you are on the premises I believe. This could go on for months and months if they want to keep the bail conditions going until they eventually get bored of it.He was left homeless, had 30 mins to pack a bag no formal help or support. Fortunately I was in a position to help.
Bail conditions were kept to by the letter, this was essential for his defence. When he was faced with a potential breach he declared it straight away (likely set up by his soon to be Ex).
In this case there was nothing light hearted. But all sorted now.
Edited by r159 on Monday 9th November 20:12
Frane Selak said:
Do you not think this system is open to abuse though, this seems to be the case with these "auditor" type people that film the mayhem in city centres all seem to have bail conditions preventing them from visiting city centres.
What have they done to even be placed in a position to be bailed in the first place? MrBogSmith said:
Frane Selak said:
Do you not think this system is open to abuse though, this seems to be the case with these "auditor" type people that film the mayhem in city centres all seem to have bail conditions preventing them from visiting city centres.
What have they done to even be placed in a position to be bailed in the first place? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Icqpel9DvJo
Frane Selak said:
How do the police get to impose restrictions on you before you are even charged with anything? I don't understand and what happens if you ignore them, is it then straight to prison without trial? Seems bizarre, what's stopping the police from simply saying you cant leave your house at any time whatsoever and then when you do because you are starving they then arrest you for breaking the bail condition.
If you don't agree to the conditions you can apply to the magistrate's court under s.47(1E) PACE with whatever grounds a person believes they are unreasonable. I don't know whether these are expedited.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/secti...
Frane Selak said:
MrBogSmith said:
Frane Selak said:
Do you not think this system is open to abuse though, this seems to be the case with these "auditor" type people that film the mayhem in city centres all seem to have bail conditions preventing them from visiting city centres.
What have they done to even be placed in a position to be bailed in the first place? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Icqpel9DvJo
There's nothing unusual about that.
There's loads of 'auditor' / camera dips
ts trying to scrape a few pence from monetisation doing their thing lawfully, all the time. It's hardly a surprise it may attract some individuals who step over the mark, given the key to the content's engagement is controversy / conflict.
From time to time Facebook decides i want to see auditor type footage.
Straight off- you don't see the "good" interactions, only the bad ones. So there is observation bias here.
But the bad ones- Jesus, some police officers really don't help themselves or the institutions they work for.
I would be sad if my son became a youtube "auditor", but i respect their freedom to pass their time that way.
It seems police (in the bad interactions at least) really do fear transparency, have paper thin skin and a massive ego / complex. They also seem pathologically unable to admit they're wrong or just walk away.
Anyway, I would hope unreasonable or onerous bail conditions could be challenged via an accessible process.
However, take a look at the recent "Wandsworth small claims dourt" thread if you want to see how our courts actually work.
My impression is 99/100 times a magistrate will just side with the police.
The only recent cases where courts/ juries haven't supported the police have had £100s of £k of legal aid spent on kc's to fight your corner.
Any ordinary person is not going to bankrupt themselves over bail conditions.
My gut tells me the "legally trained" desk seegent has imposed this bail condition because they don't want to deal with future complaints from the people being filmed.
I doubt they have made it based on any real legal analysis of the auditors right to film, and whether any suspected public order offence arose from the complainant's lack of understanding of the law around public filming.
Finally, because no-one has said it yet, i think there are hints of "the process is the punishment". It simply gets the problem off the desk sergents desk by writing up.some guff, so they can deal with the next problem.
Will the guff be challenged? Probably not, and not before their shift ends, so job jobbed.
Straight off- you don't see the "good" interactions, only the bad ones. So there is observation bias here.
But the bad ones- Jesus, some police officers really don't help themselves or the institutions they work for.
I would be sad if my son became a youtube "auditor", but i respect their freedom to pass their time that way.
It seems police (in the bad interactions at least) really do fear transparency, have paper thin skin and a massive ego / complex. They also seem pathologically unable to admit they're wrong or just walk away.
Anyway, I would hope unreasonable or onerous bail conditions could be challenged via an accessible process.
However, take a look at the recent "Wandsworth small claims dourt" thread if you want to see how our courts actually work.
My impression is 99/100 times a magistrate will just side with the police.
The only recent cases where courts/ juries haven't supported the police have had £100s of £k of legal aid spent on kc's to fight your corner.
Any ordinary person is not going to bankrupt themselves over bail conditions.
My gut tells me the "legally trained" desk seegent has imposed this bail condition because they don't want to deal with future complaints from the people being filmed.
I doubt they have made it based on any real legal analysis of the auditors right to film, and whether any suspected public order offence arose from the complainant's lack of understanding of the law around public filming.
Finally, because no-one has said it yet, i think there are hints of "the process is the punishment". It simply gets the problem off the desk sergents desk by writing up.some guff, so they can deal with the next problem.
Will the guff be challenged? Probably not, and not before their shift ends, so job jobbed.
Ian Geary said:
My gut tells me the "legally trained" desk seegent has imposed this bail condition because they don't want to deal with future complaints from the people being filmed.
A custody Sergeant won't have anything to do with anyone who may complain about being filmed. The person has been charged with a public order offence so prohibited from the area where the offence occurred / is likely to reoccur.
Not unusual.
MrBogSmith said:
Ian Geary said:
My gut tells me the "legally trained" desk seegent has imposed this bail condition because they don't want to deal with future complaints from the people being filmed.
A custody Sergeant won't have anything to do with anyone who may complain about being filmed. The person has been charged with a public order offence so prohibited from the area where the offence occurred / is likely to reoccur.
Not unusual.
It wouldn't be the first time either of those two scenarios have happened and just recently someone died because of a lie to the police yet you have made your mind up that he definitely did it so I'm guessing you wouldn't hesitate in ordering those bail conditions as well.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff