Bail or jail? The practical operation of the bail act 1976

Journal of Law and Society

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 213-233

  Hucklesby, Anthea ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040519173     PISSN: 0263323X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1410417     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Avon and Somerset Police, The Effect of 'Re-Offending' on Bail on Crime in Avon and Somerset (1991); Northumbria Police, Bail and Multiple Offending (1992).
2. Avon and Somerset Police, The Effect of 'Re-Offending' on Bail on Crime in Avon and Somerset (1991); Northumbria Police, Bail and Multiple Offending (1992).
3. id.
4. Home Office, Criminal Statistics England and Wales (1993).
5. J. Burrows et al, Improving bail decisions: the bail process project, phase 1 (1994).
6. The information found on the lists varied slightly in the three courts. However, the lists provided information on the previous court decision, if applicable, the name, address, and date of birth of the defendant, the solicitor appearing for the defendant, details of the alleged offence(s) including the charge, date and time of the offence, the name of the victim and, in some cases, the value of the property involved. On some lists it also indicated the stage that the case had reached, the employment status of the defendant and other defendants linked to the case.
7. The twenty-four categories of information collected were: offending-related factors: present offence, co-defendants, previous convictions, previous custodial sentence, plea, and possible future sentence; bail history: past periods on bail or in custody, whether on bail, previous failure to surrender or breached conditions; community ties: residence, employment, partner, family, and children; other information concerning the defendant: state of relationship, medical problems, level of education, financial circumstances, drug/alcohol problems, surety available; court factors: delays and prison industrial action; other.
8. Offending-related information includes the categories of offending-related factors and bail history. Defendant's circumstances and community ties includes the categories under community ties and other information concerning the defendant above.
9. M. McConville et al., The Case for the Prosecution (1991).
10. The grounds and reasons for the refusal of unconditional bail should be recorded on the bail form. However, these were not examined during the study.
11. 2 = 11.25:>0.005).
12. 2 = 13.331:>0.005). However, this relationship did not fully account for differences in custody rates. Defendants who had previous convictions were less likely to be granted bail, whatever the offence charged.
13. 2 = 9.03:>0.005).
14. 2 = 37.2:>0.0001). Nevertheless, when previous convictions were taken into consideration there was still a large disparity between custody rates for males and females: for those known to have previous convictions, 56 per cent of males and 20 per cent of females were remanded in custody and for those known to have no previous convictions the figures were 33 per cent and 19 per cent respectively.
15. A. Hucklesby, 'The Use and Abuse of Conditional Bail' (1994) 33 Howard J. of Criminal Justice 258-70.
16. M. McConville et al., Standing Accused (1994).
17. C. Lloyd, Bail Information Schemes: Practice and Effect (1992) 17
18. A. Hucklesby, 'Court Culture: An Explanation of Variations in the Use of Bail in Magistrates' Courts' (1996) 35 Howard J. of Criminal Justice (forthcoming).
19. F. Simon and S. Weatheritt, The Use of Bail and Custody by London Magistrates' Courts Before and After the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (1974); L.M. Cutts, 'Has the Bail Act made any difference' (1982) 132 New Law J. 1089-90.
20. F. Simon and S. Weatheritt, The Use of Bail and Custody by London Magistrates' Courts Before and After the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (1974); L.M. Cutts, 'Has the Bail Act made any difference' (1982) 132 New Law J. 1089-90.