>#Police ordered to consult victims of crime when releasing suspects on bail
>Fiona Hamilton, Crime Editor
>Monday August 08 2022, 12.01am BST, The Times
>__Police officers will have to seek the views of victims before deciding how they release criminal suspects in a reform of bail rules, The Times has learnt.__
>Victims are to be asked about their “perception of future risk of harm” as part of an initiative aimed at reducing repeat violence by suspects who are under police investigation.
>The circumstances and views of victims must be considered when officers decide whether to introduce bail restrictions such as limiting who a suspect can contact, where a suspect can live and whether a curfew is to be imposed.
>The College of Policing, the national standards body, said the new rules would “create a web of protection to keep people safe”. The Home Office recently reversed bail changes when an overhaul that was intended to speed up the system instead made police investigations longer and left victims at increased risk.
>In 2017 Theresa May’s government introduced measures aimed at restricting bail, which can carry a series of conditions, after celebrities accused of sex crimes were left under investigation for long periods before being cleared. Instead police forces were reluctant to use bail at all and suspects were increasingly released under investigation with no conditions.
>Women’s groups said that victims of domestic violence and sexual offences were in more danger than before because alleged perpetrators were not subjected to conditions that would stop them getting back in touch.
>There was increased scrutiny after Kay Richardson, 49, was murdered by her estranged husband, Alan Martin, in Sunderland when he was released without bail conditions. He had a history of domestic abuse and she had reported him for rape.
>Last year Priti Patel, the home secretary, announced legislation that reversed May’s measures and required police to use bail where it was “necessary and proportionate”.
>The college will release guidance this week to help forces to follow the legislation when it takes effect in October. To encourage increased use of bail, the rank of the officer that approves it will be lowered, and suspects can be kept on bail for 90 days, rather than 28.
>The guidance says that bail with conditions should also be considered in any domestic or sexual abuse case. Although the decision of whether to grant bail is reserved for the custody officer, it says the victims’ views must be “carefully considered”. It emphasises that the right of the suspect not to be treated punitively is also a factor.
>The guidance reminds officers that victims have a right to an update within five working days if a suspect’s status changes. It says that bail is an “important tool to manage risk in an investigation”. It protects not only victims but also vulnerable suspects. The college said its guidance would “strike a balance between those who need protection and ensuring uncharged suspects are subject to the least restrictive measures possible”.
>David Tucker, the college’s head of crime, said: “We want to create statutory guidance which supports measures to create a web of protection for some of the most vulnerable people. For example, if a suspect has been arrested for an offence involving domestic or sexual abuse, we want officers to give serious consideration to conditions which will protect the victim.
>“The changes provide a real opportunity to improve the experiences of those who come into contact with the criminal justice system.”
So no one will ever be bailed. Hope there’s plenty of custody space available….
Want to make sure I’m reading this correct. The local police determine the appropriateness of bail and the bail amount for a suspect, not a magistrate or local prosecutor?
Doesn’t that seem like a fast-track to some remarkable politicization; and does so in a way that cuts local voters entirely out of a policy process they should have a say in? I just don’t know where there is any accountability in such a mechanism.
Someone that is prepared to murder a person is unlikely to be deterred by bail conditions.
If a suspect contacts the victim of an ongoing investigation then they commit witness intimidation, which has a sentence up to 5 years and is much more serious than breaching bail conditions. (There is no punishment as such for breaching bail, you just get arrested and if there is now enough evidence you get charged with the previous offence… if there isn’t enough evidence you just get rebailed)
Even when people breach court bail they seldom seem to get proper punishments.
Bail conditions can be really useful sometimes, but other times have no benefit. When the victim lives in another county and you can put conditions not to enter that county or for child sexual offences not to have a phone except that’s registered to you or for organised crime then not to drive or be in the front seat of a car or to live and sleep at an address.
4 comments
>#Police ordered to consult victims of crime when releasing suspects on bail
>Fiona Hamilton, Crime Editor
>Monday August 08 2022, 12.01am BST, The Times
>__Police officers will have to seek the views of victims before deciding how they release criminal suspects in a reform of bail rules, The Times has learnt.__
>Victims are to be asked about their “perception of future risk of harm” as part of an initiative aimed at reducing repeat violence by suspects who are under police investigation.
>The circumstances and views of victims must be considered when officers decide whether to introduce bail restrictions such as limiting who a suspect can contact, where a suspect can live and whether a curfew is to be imposed.
>The College of Policing, the national standards body, said the new rules would “create a web of protection to keep people safe”. The Home Office recently reversed bail changes when an overhaul that was intended to speed up the system instead made police investigations longer and left victims at increased risk.
>In 2017 Theresa May’s government introduced measures aimed at restricting bail, which can carry a series of conditions, after celebrities accused of sex crimes were left under investigation for long periods before being cleared. Instead police forces were reluctant to use bail at all and suspects were increasingly released under investigation with no conditions.
>Women’s groups said that victims of domestic violence and sexual offences were in more danger than before because alleged perpetrators were not subjected to conditions that would stop them getting back in touch.
>There was increased scrutiny after Kay Richardson, 49, was murdered by her estranged husband, Alan Martin, in Sunderland when he was released without bail conditions. He had a history of domestic abuse and she had reported him for rape.
>Last year Priti Patel, the home secretary, announced legislation that reversed May’s measures and required police to use bail where it was “necessary and proportionate”.
>The college will release guidance this week to help forces to follow the legislation when it takes effect in October. To encourage increased use of bail, the rank of the officer that approves it will be lowered, and suspects can be kept on bail for 90 days, rather than 28.
>The guidance says that bail with conditions should also be considered in any domestic or sexual abuse case. Although the decision of whether to grant bail is reserved for the custody officer, it says the victims’ views must be “carefully considered”. It emphasises that the right of the suspect not to be treated punitively is also a factor.
>The guidance reminds officers that victims have a right to an update within five working days if a suspect’s status changes. It says that bail is an “important tool to manage risk in an investigation”. It protects not only victims but also vulnerable suspects. The college said its guidance would “strike a balance between those who need protection and ensuring uncharged suspects are subject to the least restrictive measures possible”.
>David Tucker, the college’s head of crime, said: “We want to create statutory guidance which supports measures to create a web of protection for some of the most vulnerable people. For example, if a suspect has been arrested for an offence involving domestic or sexual abuse, we want officers to give serious consideration to conditions which will protect the victim.
>“The changes provide a real opportunity to improve the experiences of those who come into contact with the criminal justice system.”
So no one will ever be bailed. Hope there’s plenty of custody space available….
Want to make sure I’m reading this correct. The local police determine the appropriateness of bail and the bail amount for a suspect, not a magistrate or local prosecutor?
Doesn’t that seem like a fast-track to some remarkable politicization; and does so in a way that cuts local voters entirely out of a policy process they should have a say in? I just don’t know where there is any accountability in such a mechanism.
Someone that is prepared to murder a person is unlikely to be deterred by bail conditions.
If a suspect contacts the victim of an ongoing investigation then they commit witness intimidation, which has a sentence up to 5 years and is much more serious than breaching bail conditions. (There is no punishment as such for breaching bail, you just get arrested and if there is now enough evidence you get charged with the previous offence… if there isn’t enough evidence you just get rebailed)
Even when people breach court bail they seldom seem to get proper punishments.
Bail conditions can be really useful sometimes, but other times have no benefit. When the victim lives in another county and you can put conditions not to enter that county or for child sexual offences not to have a phone except that’s registered to you or for organised crime then not to drive or be in the front seat of a car or to live and sleep at an address.