Bail v Remand
 

more and more often whenever I read in a news report from the UK about the police making an arrest after some crime the accused are released on Bail while inquiries continue, even before a court appearence ,not just petty stuff like shop lifting and drunk and disorderly , but sometimes pretty serious stuff including knife crime ......has the law in the UK been changed so much that an appearence before a Magistrate is no longer neccessary ? I thought it was the courts who were supposed to decide if there was a case to answer, and then decide on Bail or Remand and not the Police. :confused: :confused:

Re: Bail v Remand
 

This sounds kinda dumb .... do you mean that there is no bail hearing!:eek: I find it hard to believe .... but that doesn't mean it can't be so.;)

Re: Bail v Remand
 

once of a day the magistrate decided if ya got bail or not, when ya appeared in court, the police had the right to object or not, if they did the " Norm" was remanded in custody.

Re: Bail v Remand
 

They just don't seem to remand many in custody these days. Add to that they let dangerous people out early on licence and quite a number appear to re-offend often causing fatalities. Our justice system is a farce:(

Re: Bail v Remand
 

It would be rather interesting to hear what our resident vote catchers have to say on this subject? :confused:

Re: Bail v Remand
 

I believe you get arrested and make a statement,then if the police see fit you get released on police bail to return to the police station at a said date,while the C.P.S. decide if there is enough evidence to take to court.

Re: Bail v Remand
 

That's as I understand it too....and if the crime is relatively minor you will appear at the Magistrates Court.

More serious crimes will be sent to Crown Court for trial by judge and jury.

Re: Bail v Remand
 

Could be wrong but I thought all cases went to Magistates Court for plea

Re: Bail v Remand
 

i would be bloody suprised if they even respond to it.:rolleyes: it seemed to work far better the old way as most who lived at that time would agree i reckon, but then when ya know it all.:rolleyes:

Re: Bail v Remand
 

Yes thats right Lilly,also the accused has the right to ask for trial at Crown Court when appearing before a Magistrate if he/she fells they would gey a fairer hearing at Crown.

Re: Bail v Remand
 

they used too.........:rolleyes:

Re: Bail v Remand
 

No they dont Bernadette,if the accussed denies the said offence the police can release them on police bail to re-appear at the police station at a said date to give time for the C.P.S and police to get enough evidence for a conviction at court.

Re: Bail v Remand
 

So the police are acting as a court? I don't think I like this idea.:mad:

Re: Bail v Remand
 

since when? used to be be the Crown/Sessions if the magistrates felt they had Not enough power to sentence.:confused: you could ask fer certain offences to be tried at crown, but if it was a lesser offence n you asked the magistrate would refuse.

Re: Bail v Remand
 

Well there are 2 ways to look at this Eric,what if accussed is innocent they have been held on remand for nothing and could go for compensation if equitted at court.But for really serious offences yes the police will not release them.It all depends on the crime in question.

Re: Bail v Remand
 

Yep I get that, meant when it was decided if charges were being brought. Thought the first court they went to was Magistrates, then it was transferred to Crown if the Magistrates couldn't deal with it

Re: Bail v Remand
 

No you can Cashy at a Magistrate ask for it to be tried at Crown if you want to run the gaunlet of having a higher sentence bestowed upon you. Some do hoping the jury wont reach a unanimous decision.

Re: Bail v Remand
 

Compensation ... you gotta be kidding:eek: But I guess you aren't .... but aren't bail hearings held the next day after the arrest? I just like the simple old-fashioned way: legislators make the laws, police bust people, courts judge them .... and the appeal courts and the Supreme Court keep an eye on the whole process. A clear division of powers and responsibilites.

Re: Bail v Remand
 

Yes they are Eric if you get remanded by the police,unfortunate if its on a friday night LOL:)They have to wait while monday then :)

Re: Bail v Remand
 

Who in their right mind would let a burgler with prevoius,walk, and that is what bail amounts too.
If an offender is on his first charge for the offence...bail.
Second and subsequent offences....locked up.
What's wrong with that?

Re: Bail v Remand
 

don't understand that:confused: each crime has a max n minimum tariff, the magistrates could only sentence you to 6 months max, thats how it was, so where is the sense in letting some jerk on a lesser charge,waste taxpayers money,if the max tariff fer the crime is not above the 6 months?

Re: Bail v Remand
 

Definitely unfortunate .... here when the police bust drug dealers they usually do it on a Friday, esp. on a Friday before a long weekend:D

Re: Bail v Remand
 

I know but believe me it happens.Could name instances but wont LOL:)

Re: Bail v Remand
 

Yeah LOL but they deserve it LOL:DBest if its a bank holiday weekend :D

Re: Bail v Remand
 

That is a very good point....Magistates are paid by the Crown to do a service for the community......If a serious offender is caught on Friday or Saturday night...why not make them appear in court the following day?
If you are in control of a business and a problem occurs, no matter what time of the day or night, you deal with it....why not Magistrates?

Re: Bail v Remand
 

They do sometimes have hearings in Magistrates courts at weekend for very serious crimes

Re: Bail v Remand
 

Like Bernadette said they do for serious crime.

Re: Bail v Remand
 

Yes...but why not dispense with the less serious crimes whilst sat on the 'Throne'? all the staff are in attendence?

Re: Bail v Remand
 

No idea:confused:

Re: Bail v Remand
 

I think that you might be missing the point Eric.

These days the police seem to arrest someone just on SUSPICION of committing a crime whereas not too long ago a person was arrested for actually committing a crime. The arresting officer must have concrete suspicions and not arrest someone on a whim.

However suspicion is not enough to convict someone so they could be given police bail until evidence can be collected and the culprit is then charged with the crime. The case is then brought before a Magistrate’s Court, the police and defendant argue their case and the bench decides if bail is warranted or the prisoner is remanded into custody.

Once a person has been arrested on suspicion, the police have 48 hours, I think it is, to question the suspect and during that time the suspect is kept in police cells. The cops can apply to a Magistrate for an extension but there is a limit. Once the time limit has been reached the police have to either charge the suspect or let him go, usually on police bail. The police are unlikely to charge someone unless they have, or think they have the evidence to support the charge.

However if the suspected crime is terrorist related the duration is 28 days, I think, and the government wanted to extend that to 42 days. But that’s another argument.

Re: Bail v Remand
 

Nah, if a serious offender is caught on a Friday, let the sucker sit in the bucket until the first available bail court. And if I were arrested on a Friday, I would rather wait until Moday ... after all, who wants to face a magistrate all po'd because he has to miss his golf game.:eek:

Re: Bail v Remand
 

LOL or rough from the beer night before LOL:D

Re: Bail v Remand
 

Eric...the point we are trying to make is....because of the current system these ******* will not be locked up for the weekend...they will be bailed...and that is the problem.

Re: Bail v Remand
 

thats my point mt its bloody ridiculous waste of taxpayers money, but whats new?:(

Re: Bail v Remand
 

If you are falsely arrested and kept incommunicado for a period of time and then not charged you are in theory entitled to compensation.

Bail hearings are only held if the defendant has been charged with an offence and asks for bail, through his solicitor. The hearing usually take place at the next available Magistrates session.

Re: Bail v Remand
 

Yes but like i said earlier,what if these ******* are innocent and choose to go for compensation for wrongfull arrest? Then it costs more than the keeping them in food etc .

Re: Bail v Remand
 

thanks for the responses , I guess its been explained , so now there are Two types of Bail , 1 Police Bail .....where no charges are required , just suspicion . 2 Court Bail , imposed by the Magistrate, after a peson is charged and before trial .

Don't think I approve of Police Bail , just in the interests of fairness its tipping the scales to one side

Re: Bail v Remand
 

But like me and Jambutty said what happens if the accused are innocent then its more tax payers money down the swanny?

Re: Bail v Remand
 

the police always gave ya bail fer drunk n dizzy, to appear in court usually 1 month later.:D

Re: Bail v Remand
 

LOL been caught on that one but never went to court lol:D

Re: Bail v Remand
 

I think we are going down the wrong path here.
******* are known to the police for particular offences and are known to commit these offences over and over again.
If an offender has been caught in the act and admits the offence, how on this earth can he claim wrongful arrest?
It is only a matter of time for all offenders..be it smart or not so smart to get their collar felt....they have got to be very smart if caught in the act.
Wrongful arrest.....how many people have gone for that over the years?
The police have a job to do and apart from the easy targets (Motorists)
they do the job very well.

Re: Bail v Remand
 

Yes I know what you mean Roy but it happens:(

Re: Bail v Remand
 

Just because a person has been arrested it doesn’t automatically follow that they will be charged, although people do take the two to mean the same thing.

Once a person has been charged with a specific crime the police cannot arbitrarily release him/her, unless they drop the charges.

Wrongful arrest is when a person has been arrested kept in police cells for at least one day and not charged. Or if charged and taken to court the police do not present any evidence.

The rules of arrest and charge etc are quite specific which is why the speil the copper has to go through when making an arrest has to be word perfect otherwise some smart arsed mouthpiece can cause mayhem.

If a person is arrested for being drunk and disorderly (the interpretation of disorderly can mean anything from staggering about to fighting) they are wheeled off to the station and then the duty officer decides whether to charge the offender or not. If the drunk is just drunk and not causing any trouble more often than not he will get put in the cells to sleep it off and chucked out next morning with a police caution and no breakfast.

Re: Bail v Remand
 

unless things have changed that is not quite correct, staggering about, falling down, led out was always classed as Drunk and incapable, shouting, bawling,singing loud,fighting, threatening, was always Drunk and Disorderly. that is/was fact, got the T-Shirt.:D

Re: Bail v Remand
 

Hahahahahahaha Think we all have been there :D

Re: Bail v Remand
 

Not me:p

Re: Bail v Remand
 

Yes; but who bails them? Are they out on their own recognizance? Do they have to post some money? Are there conditions attached other than a promise to appear?:confused:

Re: Bail v Remand
 

From what I have read in the papers and listened to the following maybe in order but then again with matters pertaning to law it is open to debate!!!

Arrested (alleged assault)

Taken to Police Station and placed into cells, if under the influnce of alcohol no interview or statement until sober takes place.

Duty solicetor(sp) called in because the accused will not speak without them.

Police do interview after they have talked and get the response of "No comment" throughout, which means the Police have to go and get statements etc, the interview or a full statement of the events as seen by the accused.

Police may then have to interview the aggreved (but they have to be sober too).

After this (as far as I'm aware) Police can now send the "files" to the CPS (Crown Prosucation(sp) Service) who then look and see if they can be charged or need more infomation/statements etc, and what charge if any, can be brought.
CPS say yes they can then be
1/ charged in the Police Station (cells) and detained/bailed
2/ bailed with conditions
3/ bailed pending further enquiries
4/ bailed to report back at a later date
5/ or sent to Magistraits for remand or court bail.

While there it maybe that the case is outside of what the lower court can deal with so will then be sent to Crown and usually they get remanned to jail.

If they can deal they will ask if the accused will want to go to Crown Court.

Think that covers most of the topic but then again I have been known to be wrong LOL :tongueout

Re: Bail v Remand
 

And the spanner in the works is

D&D now get Cautions with £80 fines as do some other lesser crimes providing there has been no harm to person or property, so I am lead to believe

Re: Bail v Remand
 

There are two kinds of bail, police bail, and magistrates bail, police may bail to appear at a later date, because they only suspect they have committed a crime. When a defendant goes before a magistrate, he/she HAS been charged with an offence, it is then up to the magistrate to decide wether to bail or remand. Roy the thing about local politicians, saying something is futile realy as they do not have anything to do with the courts or the police, well not at local level, Hyndburn that is. The police come under Lancashire County Council Police Authority, and the courts under CPS