The Debate: Is bail permitted too easily in our courts?

Jan 22 2008 by Vicky Anderson, Liverpool Daily Post

A judge has attacked laws giving young defendants freedom. Vicky Anderson reports

THE three teenage murderers of Warrington father-of-three Gary Newlove were named as their trial came to an end.

It was only after they had been found guilty that it could be revealed that one of the killers had been released on bail by magistrates for a similar offence on the very day he played a part in kicking 47-year-old Mr Newlove to death in a drunken rampage.

As senior Liverpool judge Ian Trigger sentenced Adam Swellings, 19, for his part in the attack, he condemned politicians for allowing the “right to bail” to juvenile delinquents.

He said: "We are living in a society bedevilled by wild, feral youths such as you.

“Before we plunge into even greater violence at the hands of lawless and irresponsible youths, it is time for us to address the problem.”

His views, although they have proved popular with the general public, have been opposed by some in the criminal justice system who argue the bail process is complex and not all offenders can be put behind bars.

So today, the Daily Post asks: Is bail permitted too easily in our courts?

vickyanderson@dailypost.co.uk

YES: The Case For - Violent crime is rising – and they get away with it

by Phil Griffiths, North West Chairman of UKIP

DESPITE government figures and political denials, the facts are that violent crime is on the increase and the thugs are getting away with it.

They are bailed when most members of the general public think they should be locked up until their trial comes up, so that they cannot reoffend in the meantime.

It is unbelievable that this government after ten years of power is totally incapable of addressing the situation which could be quickly solved by taking account of what is best for society, rather than being led by the nose by the 'rights' brigade.

The hands of magistrates and judges are basically tied by the Bail Act and they are unable or unwilling to use discretion.

Forming judgements about defendants and their potential risk of harm to society should involve more than considering just a prescribed criteria – which appears to be biased in favour of the defendant. It should be about reality and the need to protect the public. I don't suppose the law could possibly have been so framed because of prison overcrowding, could it? Or am I just being cynical?

It hardly needs saying, coming so hot on the heels of the mindless murder of father-of-three Garry Newlove, which itself is just one in a sorry trail of other needless tragedies, that the consequences of granting bail to violent offenders can be catastrophic. Our political masters may pretend that the system is working fine but in reality we all know this is not the case – as is being more often openly acknowledged by the increasingly frustrated and downright angry judiciary.

They see day after day the results of what happens when the lawmakers get it wrong and since Labour were voted into power there have been countless examples of that.

You only have to look at the indeterminate sentences for public protection. The cumbersome legislation has created much more work for both lawyers, probation officers and judges when it comes to sentencing those who tick the right boxes and – often inappropriately – technically find themselves at risk of such a sentence.

The Government had totally failed to realise how many would be caught up in that particular legislation – and now have egg on its face with the crowded jails being even fuller.

Judges traditionally keep their thoughts on the rights and wrongs of the laws they have to administer to themselves, so when even they are starting to express their opinions in court you know something serious is going on.

The maxim 'it ain't broke – don't fix it' is plainly not the right one for this situation. It is instead of a case of 'it is broken – and it does need fixing.'.

Common sense – which has stood this country in such good stead for so many centuries – needs to prevail and put a stop this stupid political correctness. The courts should be free to deal with the criminals effectively and in doing so restore justice to our communities and make this a better land in which to live.

Forget the criminals so called rights – they forfeited them when they deliberately committed their crimes. It is time to take firm action and make our streets safe places to walk, day and night.

NO: The Case Against - The system presumes all are innocent until proven guilty

by Paul Ford, head of crime at Kirwans Solicitors

THE recent tragic case in Warrington, involving Garry Newlove, has raised questions about the nature of bail and whether it is granted too easily.

This can often be a controversial subject, particularly in cases where a defendant commits a serious crime, such as murder or manslaughter, while released on bail.

Thankfully, cases such as these are exceptionally rare and that is largely thanks to the way bail is granted in our justice system.

In essence, anyone who is before the courts accused of a crime has the right to apply for bail while they are awaiting their trial.

The average application for bail before a magistrate can last for more than an hour so it is certainly not something that is rushed or not considered fully.

During this time, the prosecution will outline their case against the defendant and put forward any previous convictions.

After this, the defence solicitor will put forward the case for their client, which may include the defendant’s denial of the alleged crime and any rebuttals of the evidence. Also, at this time the defence solicitor may suggest ways the court can avoid remand-ing the defendant in custody.

For example, if it is a violent crime committed in a certain area, the solicitor could volunteer that his client will live in another area during the time he is on bail and avoid any further crimes being committed.

Following these submissions, the magistrates will usually retire to consider whether or not they are to grant bail.

So, as you can see, these decisions are not taken lightly and are made with all the facts before the magistrates.

If it is a serious crime, such as murder, manslaughter or armed robbery, then it is highly unlikely that they will be granted bail.

Unfortunately, some defendants who are released on bail do commit further offences. These tend to be nuisance crimes, such as vehicle theft or public order offences. If they persistently commit offences then they are likely to be remanded in custody when they appear before the courts again.

Ultimately, the court system can not imprison everyone who comes before it and neither should it want to. Our justice system is based on the concept that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and the system of bail supports that. It is clearly absurd to remand a person in custody, who is alleged to have committed a fairly minor crime and has no previous convictions, particularly if the evidence against them is weak.

The Garry Newlove case is appalling and has quite rightly raised questions about how the justice system works and, in particular, how bail is granted.

Although I can not agree with the statement that bail is currently granted too easily, I would certainly welcome any inquiry into the current system and any improvements that can be made.