Police and Justice Bill

moved Amendment No. 86: "Page 90, line 25, at end insert-""““( ) Conditions of bail imposed under subsection (3B) shall expire on the earlier of-""(a) the time at which the person attends at a police station; and""(b) 72 hours from the time at which he was released on bail.””””" The noble Lord said: Our amendment would restrict the maximum duration of conditions on street bail. It specifies that a condition will expire either three days after the person was released or when he attends a police station, whichever is earlier. We do not object to the use of street bail, which has existed since January 2004. It can be beneficial for both the police and the suspect. We do not wish to see people taken to a police station at times that are inconvenient for them or the police. Neither would the amendment stop conditions being imposed on street bail. The Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that these provisions would not give rise to a significant risk of incompatibility with the rights in the Human Rights Act 1998, in the light of the legal right of the suspect to apply to have bail conditions varied. Regardless of whether a convention right would be violated, as a matter of strict legal interpretation, we consider the power to impose a condition of an unlimited duration to be unacceptable and to give rise to a serious risk of abuse, for a number of reasons. First, the conditions attached to street bail could severely restrict an individual’s liberty, including curfews, tagging or restrictions on who they can speak to or meet. As street bail is likely to be used in relatively minor cases, it would be disproportionate to impose these kinds of restrictions for lengthy periods. The conditions themselves could have a more severe impact on the suspect than any sentence imposed for the minor offence. Secondly, there is a risk that these conditions could be used in lieu of a criminal charge and prosecution. If reasonable time limits were imposed, it would remove that risk, requiring the police to investigate the case as quickly as possible and to decide whether to charge the suspect. The suspect may not appreciate the right to appeal against the condition. If they did understand their rights, they may feel unable to initiate such an appeal for fear that it would jeopardise their case. Including a time limit in the Bill would ensure that the suspect attends a police station, where they will receive legal advice and the quasi-independent involvement of the custody officer. These concerns were raised in the Commons but the Minister failed to provide satisfactory answers to them. Indeed, she accepted them, saying: "““It is clearly important for our police service to be able to get cases moving along as quickly as possible, and to make sure that cases are referred to the Crown Prosecution Service and that charging decisions are made as quickly as possible””—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 21/3/06; col. 138.]" It is precisely for these reasons that we believe that time limits are needed: to ensure that there is an incentive for the police to investigate crimes as quickly as possible, and to decide whether to charge a suspect. The Minister also suggested that the Home Office circular on street bail would provide safeguards. In reality, the circular illustrates the risk that the conditions will be used as long-lasting measures if reasonable time limits are not imposed in legislation. The circular poses the question: "““What length of time should a period of street bail cover?””" It provides the following response: "““As long as is necessary to carry out investigations but we would not anticipate any period longer than six weeks and, in most cases, much sooner””." Those are our concerns. I beg to move.