The defendant appealed against refusal of bail. He had failed to attend court in time of the day of his trial and said he had overlooked the date.
Held: Collins J said: ‘[T]he question of whether bail should be continued or removed in connection with the main proceedings is a matter which does not depend upon a conviction for failing to surrender. It depends upon either a conviction or upon a failure to surrender. Paragraph 6 [of the Practice direction] makes it clear that if it appears to the court that he has failed to surrender, and the court does not take the view that there was reasonable cause for the failure, then there is an obligation to refuse bail unless the court takes the view that there would be no significant risk that if released on bail he would fail to surrender to custody. ‘
As to the conclusion that a failure to attend for forgetfulness justified a remand ‘it is difficult to see how it could follow from that one failure, which admittedly was a significant failure and one which, unfortunately, took place on the day on which he was due to be tried, that he would in the future do the same thing, or he might in the future do the same thing. It seems to me that in the light, as I say, of the general approach to bail, and even bearing in mind Parliament’s views as set out in paragraph 6, there was precious little, if any, evidence to justify the fear which the learned judge said that she had.’
Judges:
Collins J
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 882 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Firearms Act 1968 16A, Bail Act 1976 4(1)
Citing:
Cited – Thomassy v France ECHR 1992
The court emphasised the need for a court refusing bail to give reasons. In refusing bail, there was a requirement to examine all the circumstances arguing for or against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest justifying, having . .
Cited – M v Isleworth Crown Court and Another Admn 2-Mar-2005
The court considered an appeal by way of judicial review of a refusal of bail.
Held: There was jurisdiction to consider a claim that bail had been refused in circumstances which showed that that refusal was erroneous in law, but that it was . .
Cited – Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Consolidation) 18-May-2004
cs When a defendant has been convicted of a Bail Act offence, the court should review the remand status of the defendant, including the conditions of that bail, in respect of the main proceedings for which bail . .
Cited – Regina (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 23-May-2001
A prison policy requiring prisoners not to be present when their property was searched and their mail was examined was unlawful. The policy had been introduced after failures in search procedures where officers had been intimidated by the presence . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Rozo v Snaresbrook Crown Court and the Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 6-Jan-2005
An application for bail was based on more general Article 5 grounds, and the learned judge was pressed with the need for him to have regard to Article 5 and to approach the matter on the basis that Article 5 applied. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225183
