Bail

[Casehardened]

Hello Inneed and welcome to the forum,

In your situation it is tempting to hope that the police have forgotten about you and nothing more will happen. Undoubtedly they have forgotten in the sense that the OIC is snowed under with cases and is concentrating on the important/easy ones (i.e. those that don't involve a FA) but this isn't the same as dropping the investigation as eventually the 'paperwork'/computer entry will resurface and indicate that the case hasn't properly been disposed of.

In effect you are in the same position as someone who has attended a voluntary interview without being arrested or bailed, i.e. in limbo.

The question is if you are happy to wait until the OIC's memory is jogged or whether you prefer to know now; if the latter, probably the best way forward is to get the reference/crime number off a undamaged bail notice and call into the police station at which you would have attended and ask about the progress of the case though this course of action will probably result in another rebail!

Your solicitor probably didn't get an answer to his letter because he also asked why bail was being extended yet again, however a copy of his letter is a perfect defence against any accusation of failing to answer bail.

[inneed]

Thank you for the welcome and for your prompt response too,

Small things like that, and a willingness to help others, help to maintain my faith in humanity!

Whilst I cannot ignore the possibility as you say that I am just waiting in a queue, whilst I am waiting, I would like some further help on one aspect.

Assuming the police failed to renew my bail before the last BTR date past, then it appears I may be correct in saying that before I can be re-arrested, the police have to have obtained fresh evidence. I realise of course that they may re-arrest without fresh evidence, but then this could be an abuse of police powers, and unlawful.

My hypothesis is based on a dialogue on a video I found on parliamentlive.tv. In a meeting between the committee chair and Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), at the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday 3 March 2015, this is what was said:

16:36hrs

CHAIR

...are you able to say, well, we’re still looking into this, we’ve not charged him with anything; you don’t really need to re-bail him; if we find more evidence, we will come back and rearrest him and charge him. Are you able to say that, or is it a decision entirely up to the police to make?

DPP

No, it’s an operational matter for the police.

CHAIR

Right

DPP

Obviously, there would be, there may be some significant legal issues...

CHAIR

Sure

DPP

...because if somebody has been on bail, is released on bail, there are issues about how you then rearrest, whether you can rearrest, and also whether you can then ask somebody to come back and be charged; arrest for them to be charged. So there are some legal issues around that which I think part of the responses to the Home Office consultation that that might be best clarified so that in some cases suspects can released not on bail, but still the power to go back an arrest and bring them back to charge...

CHAIR

So if someone...

DPP

...but in other cases it will be necessary to put them on bail for all sorts of reasons; not to interfere with witnesses; not to flee;

CHAIR

Of course


A video of this meeting can be found here:

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/I...0-7708e187ee46

Naturally, if the DPP says there are “significant legal issues” , then for my own sake, and perhaps that of others on this forum, I would like to find out what those legal issues are.

Hoping that someone may be able to enlighten me.

[Casehardened]

Off the cuff and without googling caselaw (and also playing devil's advocate!) if the police wanted to rearrest you they could do it quite simply on the basis that you didn't answer bail which is of course an offence in it's own right! (albeit that you have a defence so wouldn't be actually punished)

However I can see were you're coming from and the serious answer is that if the CPS did want to proceed with the case rather than NFAing it, instead of getting the police to charge you at your bail appearance, they could get you in the system by summonsing you to appear at the Magistrates Court.

[inneed]

Off the cuff and without googling caselaw (and also playing devil's advocate!) if the police wanted to rearrest you they could do it quite simply on the basis that you didn't answer bail which is of course an offence in it's own right! (albeit that you have a defence so wouldn't be actually punished)

However I can see were you're coming from and the serious answer is that if the CPS did want to proceed with the case rather than NFAing it, instead of getting the police to charge you at your bail appearance, they could get you in the system by summonsing you to appear at the Magistrates Court.

Okay that helps, thank you.

However if it is that easy to get me into the court system, one cannot help wondering what the DPP meant when she referred to “significant legal issues” in her reply to the Chair.

Do you, or anyone else on here, have any ideas what those legal issues may be?

Thank you again in anticipation

[Franticwithworry]

Madam Cynic here - the DPP seemed to me to be blustering and not to be saying anything of significance here, other than 'the police and I make it up as they go along'.

People get bail conditions that bear no relation to the accusation or risk. People get invited for interview or arrested, the distinction based on not very much, people find their bail cancelled with no reason given or conditions changed with no notice. The whole thing is a farce with little consistency so far as I can tell.

You will probably get different advice from different solicitors as to how to proceed, but the essence is this - you have a defence against 'failure to appear' and you have not received a new date. The options are to wait quietly until you hear more or to push the police for an update. The longer you hear nothing the more likely your file is buried and the longer its buried the more likely it's not being worked on and there's nothing to pursue.

I think what you do now depends on how patient you can bear to be. Theres no right or wrong thing to do. Whatever you do you can justify your actions if need be.

[inneed]

Madam Cynic here - the DPP seemed to me to be blustering and not to be saying anything of significance here, other than 'the police and I make it up as they go along'.

People get bail conditions that bear no relation to the accusation or risk. People get invited for interview or arrested, the distinction based on not very much, people find their bail cancelled with no reason given or conditions changed with no notice. The whole thing is a farce with little consistency so far as I can tell.

You will probably get different advice from different solicitors as to how to proceed, but the essence is this - you have a defence against 'failure to appear' and you have not received a new date. The options are to wait quietly until you hear more or to push the police for an update. The longer you hear nothing the more likely your file is buried and the longer its buried the more likely it's not being worked on and there's nothing to pursue.

I think what you do now depends on how patient you can bear to be. Theres no right or wrong thing to do. Whatever you do you can justify your actions if need be.

Thank you for your time and trouble. Appreciated.

I feared that this may be the position. A legal limbo!

My only hope, and knowing how much this is costing my personal reputation, livelihood and future, is that when the Chair answered "right" and "sure" there is something in case law or legislation that can assist.

That said, I have spent months trawling the internet, and have found nothing yet.

Sadly I can no longer afford legal representation and don't qualify for the new legal aid, but I wont give up hope that someone who knows more reads this and replies...

[Franticwithworry]

Thank you for your time and trouble. Appreciated.

I feared that this may be the position. A legal limbo!

My only hope, and knowing how much this is costing my personal reputation, livelihood and future, is that when the Chair answered "right" and "sure" there is something in case law or legislation that can assist.

That said, I have spent months trawling the internet, and have found nothing yet.

Sadly I can no longer afford legal representation and don't qualify for the new legal aid, but I wont give up hope that someone who knows more reads this and replies...

The way I read it, the Chair might just have easily been saying nothing more than 'OK' in every instance or merely nodding the head in acknowledgement, not in agreement at all. Notice that the DPP does not expand on the 'legal implications' at all, and I get the impression that she has no clue what she is talking about, except that she is versed in political bluster.

What kind of case law or legislation are you looking for? Something to ensure that if things go on too long, however long that is, there is an automatic NFA? Sadly, there isn't, I do know that much, though I hope you get a more full answer from someone who knows more than I.

From my calculations you've been 'in the system' for about 21 months, and as Casehardened says, it really is up to you how much you want to stir the pot. It's a horrible decision to have to make.

[sqounk]

Madam Cynic here - the DPP seemed to me to be blustering and not to be saying anything of significance here, other than 'the police and I make it up as they go along'.

People get bail conditions that bear no relation to the accusation or risk. People get invited for interview or arrested, the distinction based on not very much, people find their bail cancelled with no reason given or conditions changed with no notice. The whole thing is a farce with little consistency so far as I can tell.

You will probably get different advice from different solicitors as to how to proceed, but the essence is this - you have a defence against 'failure to appear' and you have not received a new date. The options are to wait quietly until you hear more or to push the police for an update. The longer you hear nothing the more likely your file is buried and the longer its buried the more likely it's not being worked on and there's nothing to pursue.

I think what you do now depends on how patient you can bear to be. Theres no right or wrong thing to do. Whatever you do you can justify your actions if need be.

I honestly sometimes feel that the police have so many cases on they rely on bail dates as effective reminders to focus again on that particular case.

[inneed]

The way I read it, the Chair might just have easily been saying nothing more than 'OK' in every instance or merely nodding the head in acknowledgement, not in agreement at all. Notice that the DPP does not expand on the 'legal implications' at all, and I get the impression that she has no clue what she is talking about, except that she is versed in political bluster.

What kind of case law or legislation are you looking for? Something to ensure that if things go on too long, however long that is, there is an automatic NFA? Sadly, there isn't, I do know that much, though I hope you get a more full answer from someone who knows more than I.

From my calculations you've been 'in the system' for about 21 months, and as Casehardened says, it really is up to you how much you want to stir the pot. It's a horrible decision to have to make.

Thank you for your comments, and I sadly I can find no good reason not to agree with you about the DPP's performance.

If Sir Robert Peel knew, he be sitting up in his grave!

Still, that is little comfort to me, and do hope others will cast in their knowledge.

Thank you to all those reading this.

[Franticwithworry]

I honestly sometimes feel that the police have so many cases on they rely on bail dates as effective reminders to focus again on that particular case.

I agree wholeheartedly. We have never had a notification of a rebail earlier than the day before.

[inneed]

I agree wholeheartedly. We have never had a notification of a rebail earlier than the day before.

But in my case, has anyone ever heard of a bail to return date exceeding 6 months? My previous bail times were all between 28 and 90 days.

Bear in mind also that the new Police and Crime bill is likely to put into place a 28 day bail limit that needs special authority to extend if the suspect is not charged. Shame it is not law now.

Also, just found this in PACE 1984 s.41

(9)A person released under subsection (7) above shall not be re-arrested without a warrant for the offence for which he was previously arrested unless new evidence justifying a further arrest has come to light since his release [F2; but this subsection does not prevent an arrest under section 46A below.]

This is a bit disheartening to say the very least, as it looks as if with a warrant I can still be re-arrested. Is that what others have found?

Thanks again to all you kind supporters. Appreciated.

[Silver]

We were notified 2 weeks in advance of bail date that OH was to be rebailed,i agree this is unusual as most on this forum and others are usually informed a day or on day.We were also sent an email informing us of the so called progress(lack of progress)
It just seems to be each police district has their own systems. This is why I think there is little information on the internet as to a consistent process with in the bail system.

The new system for bail seems to be more fast track, just hopefully it will not be to fast with charging innocent victims, with out taking the time to fully research the case! Also hopefully us in the old system will not be forgotten about.

Initially when my OH was arrested for a 30 year alleged historic sexual abuse, I assumed that an arrest meant that the police have evidence probably enough to charge. However this is not the case it is all determined how the victim wants to pursue the case, even the bail conditions are agreed with the so called "victim. "and they are also duly informed of the situation of revenge they have forced upon their victim i.e kept fully up to date with when arrest was made conditions of bail, comments at interview, even how much compensation they will receive.....

[Franticwithworry]

But in my case, has anyone ever heard of a bail to return date exceeding 6 months? My previous bail times were all between 28 and 90 days.

Bear in mind also that the new Police and Crime bill is likely to put into place a 28 day bail limit that needs special authority to extend if the suspect is not charged. Shame it is not law now.

Also, just found this in PACE 1984 s.41

(9)A person released under subsection (7) above shall not be re-arrested without a warrant for the offence for which he was previously arrested unless new evidence justifying a further arrest has come to light since his release [F2; but this subsection does not prevent an arrest under section 46A below.]

This is a bit disheartening to say the very least, as it looks as if with a warrant I can still be re-arrested. Is that what others have found?

Thanks again to all you kind supporters. Appreciated.

No, rebail dates are usually 3 months out at a maximum.

I've been following the passage of the new bail law through parliament and it's not what most people think. The 28 day limit was deemed unworkable - consider that examining electronics can take months - and thrown out. The 'special authority' is the approval of a senior police officer, and a judge if a rebail of more than 3 months is wanted. Are either of them going to say no?

I've heard several legal opinions who consider that the most likely outcome is that the police will release suspects without bail conditions more and the wait for a conclusion will be longer. As I said, the bail system is a farce and most if the time achieves nothing but restricting and therefore punishing anyone who is innocent. I'm convinced that the new law makes things potentially worse not better. You can take a look at the detail yourself on the parliamentary website.

As for being rearrested/questioned, as I understand it, the police can haul you in for more questioning at any time, with or without an arrest (if you refuse to go voluntarily you're bound to get arrested, no?), but they have to have new evidence to question you about and they can't ask about stuff they've already covered. I'm sure someone will come along and correct me if I've got that bit wrong.

[experience3]

No, rebail dates are usually 3 months out at a maximum.

I've been following the passage of the new bail law through parliament and it's not what most people think. The 28 day limit was deemed unworkable - consider that examining electronics can take months - and thrown out. The 'special authority' is the approval of a senior police officer, and a judge if a rebail of more than 3 months is wanted. Are either of them going to say no?

Actually frantic I make you wrong there.

Although I totally agree that the legislation currently going through Parliament is a fudge and not ideal, it can and should is used properly by those accused help bring the Police into line.

At the 3 months stage you will have to appear in a mags court and at that time the Police will have to MAKE THEIR CASE as to why you should be rebailed. Now whilst I am minded that they will indeed "make this up as they go along" they will have to SAY SOMETHING and whatever that is can be taken down and used in evidence against them.

So to give 2 examples.

i) If you suspect that no enquiries have been made in over 2 months then you will be able to contest to the magistrates that the case is not being investigated "diligently and expeditiously", whilst the mags will probably side with the police int he first instance, this should in essence put them on the clock for the next one.

ii) If you are on bail for reasons unknown until who knows when* - then the police will have to indicate exactly why you are on bail at the very least.

If anybody on here thinks it highly unlikely you can be on bail for who knows what until who knows when - you must be new

Happy new year everyone!

[Franticwithworry]

Actually frantic I make you wrong there.

Although I totally agree that the legislation currently going through Parliament is a fudge and not ideal, it can and should is used properly by those accused help bring the Police into line.

At the 3 months stage you will have to appear in a mags court and at that time the Police will have to MAKE THEIR CASE as to why you should be rebailed. Now whilst I am minded that they will indeed "make this up as they go along" they will have to SAY SOMETHING and whatever that is can be taken down and used in evidence against them.

So to give 2 examples.

i) If you suspect that no enquiries have been made in over 2 months then you will be able to contest to the magistrates that the case is not being investigated "diligently and expeditiously", whilst the mags will probably side with the police int he first instance, this should in essence put them on the clock for the next one.

ii) If you are on bail for reasons unknown until who knows when* - then the police will have to indicate exactly why you are on bail at the very least.

If anybody on here thinks it highly unlikely you can be on bail for who knows what until who knows when - you must be new

Happy new year everyone!

This is an interesting take on how the new law will work in practice and fits with what other solicitor(s) have told me. More people will be released without bail and have no idea what's going on with the investigation or when it will end. That seems to be the most likely outcome in many expert's thinking -

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/comment...054159.article

A worse situation for everyone accused if a crime but especially for the falsely accused, don't you agree?

Edited to add - as for the time limits and reasons for continuing bail, 'expeditiously' relies on the manpower available. All the police have to say is 'we haven't got the electronics back, there's a backlog' or 'we are doing the best we can but we are snowed under with cases and this officer is doing the best s/he can with their caseload of (insert whatever number you want here) and you can bet that the extension will be granted. Few people can afford the legal bill to argue.