Is setting bail conditions a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights?

[Pond31]

Dear fellow suffers

I have been thinking for a while that setting certain bail conditions could be considered, in my view anyway, a breach or article 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I was trying to look around for some evidence to support this and found this article "POLICE BAIL WITHOUT CHARGE: THE HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS" which is available here http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/12497/1/Cam...urnal69(3).pdf . Please note this is a professional peer reviewed journal and not just an lay persons opinion piece.

It appears that they do consider that setting bail conditions "pre-charge" could be a breach of the ECHR. However I have not seen many challenges in the news. I would argue that setting any bail conditions contravenes the basic principal of "innocent until proven guilty" as you have been in fact place in a open prison and held to behave in a way that all other innocent members of the public are not.

I can understand my bail condition of not "directly or indirectly" contacting the FA but the police have also stated that I have to live at my current address and not go within X miles of a certain address. Why should I not be able to move house if I want? Is moving house a criminal offence? Does it anyway affect the polices abilities to investigate the case? I rent so what if the landlord kicked me out because he does not like police arriving at the door, does that mean I breached bail? OK OK I know the only reason they place this condition on me is that they know where I am if they want to come to arrest or speak to me.

The address I am not allowed to be within X miles off is on one of the main roads in my town a route I have taken many times, therefore driving past it is technically a breach of bail conditions. There is a major hospital next to that address, so if I fall ill do I have to tell the ambulance to let me die as I don't want to break my bail conditions.

Just on a related note I have read on here that a number of people have had SS impose conditions on them because they have children in the household or visitation rights etc. This to me is another example of a breach of the basic principal of being "innocent until proven guilty". SS are imposing conditions on people because they have been arrested but pre-charge. I can understand the need to protect children's safety but SS should only be evolved after someone is charge or found guilty.

Sorry rant over it is 4am but I cannot sleep and have not been able to, 2 hours over the last 3 days. There are a lot of other details and facts I would love to discuss about my case but am keeping my powder dry for when I need it.

[Silver]

Dear fellow suffers

I have been thinking for a while that setting certain bail conditions could be considered, in my view anyway, a breach or article 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I was trying to look around for some evidence to support this and found this article "POLICE BAIL WITHOUT CHARGE: THE HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS" which is available here http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/12497/1/Cam...urnal69(3).pdf . Please note this is a professional peer reviewed journal and not just an lay persons opinion piece.

It appears that they do consider that setting bail conditions "pre-charge" could be a breach of the ECHR. However I have not seen many challenges in the news. I would argue that setting any bail conditions contravenes the basic principal of "innocent until proven guilty" as you have been in fact place in a open prison and held to behave in a way that all other innocent members of the public are not.

I can understand my bail condition of not "directly or indirectly" contacting the FA but the police have also stated that I have to live at my current address and not go within X miles of a certain address. Why should I not be able to move house if I want? Is moving house a criminal offence? Does it anyway affect the polices abilities to investigate the case? I rent so what if the landlord kicked me out because he does not like police arriving at the door, does that mean I breached bail? OK OK I know the only reason they place this condition on me is that they know where I am if they want to come to arrest or speak to me.

The address I am not allowed to be within X miles off is on one of the main roads in my town a route I have taken many times, therefore driving past it is technically a breach of bail conditions. There is a major hospital next to that address, so if I fall ill do I have to tell the ambulance to let me die as I don't want to break my bail conditions.

Just on a related note I have read on here that a number of people have had SS impose conditions on them because they have children in the household or visitation rights etc. This to me is another example of a breach of the basic principal of being "innocent until proven guilty". SS are imposing conditions on people because they have been arrested but pre-charge. I can understand the need to protect children's safety but SS should only be evolved after someone is charge or found guilty.

Sorry rant over it is 4am but I cannot sleep and have not been able to, 2 hours over the last 3 days. There are a lot of other details and facts I would love to discuss about my case but am keeping my powder dry for when I need it.

Hi Pond31,
Yes totally agree the system, is so archaic, particularly in historic cases, its definitely guilty until proven innocent.Dates back to the 16th centuary,i.e if someone says you are a witch/wizard than you are.
Am tying to be positive, feel we on this forum need to challenge this barbaric system. I have spoken with another forum member we have agreed once our partners cases are over we will campaign for a change!
I would like to see a system that does not arrest on "victims word", but researches the evidence before any accusations and arrests are made.
Trust you will sleep better tonight. If it were not for our 2 dogs on the 5am arrest I think the police would have had to knock down the door. For my hubby as an innocent man always had a peaceful nights sleep. However the slightest noise at dawn always wakes us up now..!

[Silver]

Must say your bail conditions do seem a bit bizarre. For me its the terminology used,so they might as will stipulated that you have no contact with the person. Am not that experienced with the human rights act,but I do agree with what you mean,particularly if living locally and if the shops are along the road where the so called victim lives.Have you spoken with a solicitor, am certain you are legally entitled to challenge bail conditions.

[Pond31]

Not Challenging the bail conditions

I will not be challenging my bail conditions until after I see if I am charged or not. I don't want to annoy the investigating officer as I don't want to colour their perception of me. I would love to have a debate with them about that matter just to see what they think but that too may annoy them. I have to go back to the police station again in January at which point I will have more information about what the FA said in her statements. At that point I will give a statement. I will have to decide to responding in the "yes ma'am no ma'am" way that my solicitor wants me to. If there is NFA or if when I am found not guilty I will seek support to challenge the polices right to set bail conditions.

btw I know what you mean about the knock at the door as I share a house and my housemates get a lot of take-aways and deliveries so I am jumping all the time.

[Franticwithworry]

I agree with all that you say, but just have one thing to add - my man's bail conditions include the requirement to live at a particular address. I asked a solicitor if and how this could be enforced as there was the possibility that we would need to move house and he said that, in practice, informing the police of a change of address was all that was required and the bail conditions could and would be altered to suit. It doesn't alter the whole human rights aspect, and its demeaning to ask permission to sleep elsewhere when you haven't done anything wrong. It's also awful for family members when they are effectively having to ask for permission too, and they haven't even been accused of anything.

It also makes a nonsense of the whole bail system when some people are finding their bail cancelled while investigations continue. The whole system is an archaic mess!

[Rights Fighter]

There are "exceptions" to each Article in the HRA. These usually apply to security, safety and other issues.

[Pond31]

Yes I know

There are "exceptions" to each Article in the HRA. These usually apply to security, safety and other issues.

The article discusses this matter and the writer feels that they do not cover police bail. It is an interesting article.

[Franticwithworry]

I'm just wondering who sets bail. Is it the OIC? A more senior officer? It seems to be so variable and in some cases so bizarre and without reference to practical logic, that there seems so be a case to argue vindictiveness and/or discrimination.

I wonder about the whole logic of bail when it can be varied and even cancelled without reference to the accused. Even the new law doesn't seem to be addressing the purpose of bail in any meaningful way if the police response is to release more people without any bail at all.

[sqounk]

Thought has just occurred to me - and sorry if this has already been suggested, but is it the case that the police are suddenly beginning to interview people and release them without bail but investigations remain ongoing or has this always occurred? If it hasn't, could this be a response to the impending change in the law re time limits on pre charge bail - presumably there are still quite a few people in the 'backlog' of people on pre charge bail they have to get through and they might consider it unlikely that will happen by the time the new law (if and when it happens) is implemented?

[Franticwithworry]

I've heard it said that the police are doing this more in anticipation of the new law so they don't have to justify long bail. It makes a mockery of the whole bail system.

[Pond31]

Thought has just occurred to me - and sorry if this has already been suggested, but is it the case that the police are suddenly beginning to interview people and release them without bail but investigations remain ongoing or has this always occurred? If it hasn't, could this be a response to the impending change in the law re time limits on pre charge bail - presumably there are still quite a few people in the 'backlog' of people on pre charge bail they have to get through and they might consider it unlikely that will happen by the time the new law (if and when it happens) is implemented?

This can be done already police can realise you without bail if they want,

[Pond31]

I've heard it said that the police are doing this more in anticipation of the new law so they don't have to justify long bail. It makes a mockery of the whole bail system.

The police are required to present you to a judge in a timely manner as per ECHR. There is no legal time limit set for bail or bring a case to court however you are able to take legal action if you think things are taking too long. I read somewhere anything over 12 months is considered to much but I am not sure if this is a legal opinion. I do believe you can force the polices hand by going to court and asking for your bail condition to be changed. I think you can also go to court and challenge the length of an investigation but that is something you need to seek legal advice about.

Here is a link to a bbc article showing time between arrest and charge figures for police in England and Wales.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34218982

[Franticwithworry]

This can be done already police can realise you without bail if they want,

Yes, but they are doing so more often, and it begs the question - why do they insist on bail in some cases and not others?

[Franticwithworry]

The police are required to present you to a judge in a timely manner as per ECHR. There is no legal time limit set for bail or bring a case to court however you are able to take legal action if you think things are taking too long. I read somewhere anything over 12 months is considered to much but I am not sure if this is a legal opinion. I do believe you can force the polices hand by going to court and asking for your bail condition to be changed. I think you can also go to court and challenge the length of an investigation but that is something you need to seek legal advice about.

Here is a link to a bbc article showing time between arrest and charge figures for police in England and Wales.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34218982

Most people won't challenge bail for fear of aggravating the investigating officers and making things worse for themselves. My man has been told to expect to be on bail for 18-24 months, and legal opinion is to suck it up and wait.

[SurrealLife]

Most people won't challenge bail for fear of aggravating the investigating officers and making things worse for themselves. My man has been told to expect to be on bail for 18-24 months, and legal opinion is to suck it up and wait.

My OH challenged his bail coconditiona as they originally wanted me to be included in the people he couldn't have contact with, judge overruled as it was impractical as we have children