Criminal Bail Question

[Sarah3937]

Hello,Im wondering if anyone could help with this question as it seems there are some ver helpful people on this website!
I will name the person as ''dave '' just to make it easier .This from my shadowing work as an aspiring solicitor.

Dave has 1 previous conviction for theft & failing to turn up to custody at a appointed time.
Dave has been charged with common assault,released on bail till court hearing.Doesnt turn up to court hearing,Magistartes than send a warrant,hes then arrested and attended court from custody.
He didnt turn up as he become unwell.

Question is for the bail act 1976,
How would the Magistrates Court decide on giving him bail.Would he now be refused bail under this law below :

A summary only imprisonable offence - Part 1A Sch 1 BA 1976 ,this provided that defendant need not by granted bail where :
- He has failed to surrender to custody after previously being granted bail, and the court believe he would do so again (para 2)
or

he has previously been arrested for absconding or breaking bail conditions. The court
believe that he would fail to surrender to custody, commit an offence on bail, interfere with
witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice (para 7).


Would Daves bail grant be refused under Para 2 or Para 7? Can anyone advise if this is the correct law or is it diffrent?
I just need to know if he would be granted bail ,however as he has previous convictions and he failed to appoint to custody previously on another case,i would say it would be refused?
However unsure what part of Bail Act is for him
Thank you!

[islandgirl]

He did not turn up to court as he was unwell...can he prove that? Depending on all sorts of things bail may be granted if Dave can do so!

[R0b]

Theft is an either way offence not a summary offence so the summary offence provision won't apply. When thinking about bail, you should start always start with the presumption that bail should be granted (s4 BA 1976). From there, it is up to the prosecution to argue why bail should not be granted using the relevant exceptions in paragraph 2, Part 1 of Schedule 1.

There may be one or multiple reasons why the court may not want to grant bail so they don't just have to rely on one condition. Can you direct me to paragraph 7 you referred to as there are only six paragraphs (and an extra paragraph 6ZA) for bail listed on the legislation and I can't see that one.

Even if one of the exceptions to granting bail applies, that is not the end of the road for the court, as they also have to take into account paragraph 9, Part 1 of Schedule 1. So it is entirely plausible that Dave may nevertheless be granted bail anyway.

If there's concerns that of the defendant then the court may grant conditional bail instead such as curfew times, staying at a certain residence until trial, put on tag, to attend appointments at regular interval etc.

[islandgirl]

Rob is absolutely correct. We can make the decision we believe correct as long as we can justify and always have to give reasons.

[Sarah3937]

Theft is an either way offence not a summary offence so the summary offence provision won't apply. When thinking about bail, you should start always start with the presumption that bail should be granted (s4 BA 1976). From there, it is up to the prosecution to argue why bail should not be granted using the relevant exceptions in paragraph 2, Part 1 of Schedule 1.

There may be one or multiple reasons why the court may not want to grant bail so they don't just have to rely on one condition. Can you direct me to paragraph 7 you referred to as there are only six paragraphs (and an extra paragraph 6ZA) for bail listed on the legislation and I can't see that one.

Even if one of the exceptions to granting bail applies, that is not the end of the road for the court, as they also have to take into account paragraph 9, Part 1 of Schedule 1. So it is entirely plausible that Dave may nevertheless be granted bail anyway.

If there's concerns that of the defendant then the court may grant conditional bail instead such as curfew times, staying at a certain residence until trial, put on tag, to attend appointments at regular interval etc.

Hi Rob,
Thank you very much for replying! I seem to have confused myself completely to this!

I have amended, could you have a look below - is this correct - Is there anything i need to mention?

Also i need to choose the correct option to why he would be refused, would it be paragraph 2 or 6? I have put this in pink writing.

Dave was arrested due to failing to turn up to court as he was unwell. The bail Act 1976 is the schedule for this situation.
S4 Bail Act 1974, the allows a suspect the prima facie right to bail or are rebuttable assumption in favour of bail:
• At all stages of the prosecution until conviction;
• after conviction, where the court adjourns the case for reports.
The statutory factors for refusing Dave Bail would be found under Para 9 -part (1) Bail Act 1976.These factors are :

• The nature and seriousness of offence
• Suspects character, and associations
• Accused record if previously granted bail
• Strength of evidence against accused
• Offences likely if on bail
• Other relevant factors

There are grounds refusing bail where:

• The defendant will fail to appear at court
• The defendant will commit other offences while on bail
• There is a risk the defendant will interfere with prosecution witnesses

Part 1A Sch Ba 1976 provides that a defendant need not be granted bail
where:
Paragraph 2 He has failed to surrender to custody after previously being granted bail, and the court
believe he would do so again – In this situation David has been arrested while on bail as he failed to turn up to court.

Paragraph 6 - if, having been granted bail, having been released on bail in connection with the same offence, he has been arrested for absconding or breaking bail conditions under s7
Bail Act 1976

It is an offence for a person who has been released on bail in criminal proceedings to
fail, without reasonable cause, to surrender to custody (s6 BA 1976). Absconding is punishable with up to three months imprisonment or an unlimited fine.


This was the question its on -

Dave has 1 previous conviction for theft and one conviction for failing to surrender to custody at the appointed time.
Since then, Dave was charged with common assault s39 and released on bail till court hearing.
Dave didn’t turn up to court hearting, Magistrates iussed a warrant for arrest, he was then arrested.
He attended court from custody.
He said he didn’t turn up as he was unwell.

Question is for the bail act 1976- How would the Magistrates Court decide on giving Dave bail,will they grant bail?

[atticus]

are you seeking help with a student assignment?

[Sarah3937]

are you seeking help with a student assignment?

Hi,
Its not an assignment as such however ,I have shadowed a solicitor in preparation for my SQE,i have been given 3 cases to work on for feedback .
ADR , Commercial litigation and criminal .

[R0b]

I would suggest you go back through your criminal textbook and re-read the section on bail to get a better understanding and familiarise yourself.

But I am not sure your point about paragraph 1A is correct in that 'bail need not be granted' if the criteria in paragraph 1A(1) applies. Rather, it suggests to me that if the criteria applies, then bail cannot be refused on the grounds listed in paragraph 1A(2). For example, theft is an indictable offence and strictly speaking, if you walked into a supermarket and stole a chocolate bar to the value of 10p it is nonetheless an offence which may carry a prison sentence. Question is, whether there is a real prospect that you would be imprisoned for nicking a 10p chocolate bar, which of course depends on a number of factors but most likely you would not unless perhaps you are a serial chocolate bar thief.

Also I think you are veering off the question when you refer to s6 BA 1976. The question is about how the court would consider bail, not the consequences of breaching bail conditions.

Again, if you go back through your textbook you hsould be able to see how to structure the question on bail and hwo it should be answered.

[Sarah3937]

I would suggest you go back through your criminal textbook and re-read the section on bail to get a better understanding and familiarise yourself.

But I am not sure your point about paragraph 1A is correct in that 'bail need not be granted' if the criteria in paragraph 1A(1) applies. Rather, it suggests to me that if the criteria applies, then bail cannot be refused on the grounds listed in paragraph 1A(2). For example, theft is an indictable offence and strictly speaking, if you walked into a supermarket and stole a chocolate bar to the value of 10p it is nonetheless an offence which may carry a prison sentence. Question is, whether there is a real prospect that you would be imprisoned for nicking a 10p chocolate bar, which of course depends on a number of factors but most likely you would not unless perhaps you are a serial chocolate bar thief.

Also I think you are veering off the question when you refer to s6 BA 1976. The question is about how the court would consider bail, not the consequences of breaching bail conditions.

Again, if you go back through your textbook you hsould be able to see how to structure the question on bail and how it should be answered.

Yes i will do as your right I have gone off the question.I will stay off the breaching bail conditions and recheck.

I have one last question - A summary offence can only be tried in Magistrates Court generally speaking and imprisoned up to 6 months.

Is there any process before the first hearing or are you sent straight to the first process at the magistrates.

I know with triable either way offences you enter a plea etc.For common assault summary offence,after the person has been charged ,they would appear at Magistrates.Is there any such plea before this or not.Would allocation come into this?


Ive read s19 MCA 1980 making decisions ,however for a summary do they still look at previous convictions etc or purely just sent to Magistrates.

[islandgirl]

We mags can now sentence up to 12 months in some cases