The defendant had been refused bail. He had a previous conviction for rape, and now faced another charge. The custody time limit had also now expired. He complained that the removal of the statutory presumption in favour of bail infringed his rights.
Held: Under s25, a defendant in this category should be granted bail only in exceptional circumstances. Was that section incompatible with the defendants article 5 rights? Such persons posed a substantial risk if released. The section allowed for exceptions, and was not incompatible. The question of whether the court was satisfied that exceptional grounds existed should not be construed narrowly. Justices should set out reasoned findings under the section. (Hooper) S25 should be read down so as to impose only an evidential burden on the defendant.
Judges:
Kennedy LJ, Hooper J
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 868 (Admin), Times 29-May-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 2756
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 5, Bail Act 1976 4(1) 25, Prosecution of Offences (Custody Time Limits) Regulations 1987 (1987 No 299) 5(6B)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hurnam v The State PC 15-Dec-2005
(Mauritius) The defendant complained that the Mauritian Bail Act as interpreted contravened his Human Rights.
Held: ‘a person charged with a serious offence, facing a severe penalty if convicted, may well have a powerful incentive to abscond . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Human Rights
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.182726
