I shall speak to Amendment No. 87, which is a probing amendment grouped with Amendment No. 86 that would impose a generous time limit of four weeks on all pre-charge bail from a police station. We are simply suggesting that that is more than enough time for the police to carry out investigations and ascertain whether there is enough evidence to charge a suspect. In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to some of the issues that have to be taken into account when we have pre-charge bail conditions.
Charging is a significant stage in the criminal justice process, and it is only at that stage that the police need to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. The power to impose restrictions on a person's freedom, whether as a condition of bail or detention in police custody before that evidential hurdle has been reached, must be limited. It is important that suspects should know the nature of the case against them and that they will ultimately appear before a court. The Magistrates’ Association stressed the importance of a safeguard as it applies to post-charge bail, pointing out that: "““Magistrates consider bail conditions very carefully in court and require as much information as possible””."
We are trying to attach a reasonable period, and within the context of 28 days. In the context of the terrorism Bill of 2005, Parliament rejected arguments for more than 28 days—the number should be burned in my brain. Indeed, tomorrow the relevant statutory instrument will put that 28-day limit into effect. Parliament rejected arguments for more than 28 days’ pre-charge detention in terrorist cases. If more than 28 days’ detention is not justified in terrorist cases, we do not see why more than 28 days’ pre-charge conditional bail would be needed to enable the police to investigate a non-terrorist case to determine whether a suspect should continue to have those conditions applied.
I note that when the then Minister—Hazel Blears—in another place responded, she said that, "““street bail should be for as short a time as possible, and states that we””—"
the Government— "““should look to a maximum of four to six weeks””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 21/03/06; col. 140.]"
We therefore think that our amendment fits in rather nicely with the Government’s intentions and hope that it would be adequate time to satisfy the Minister.
Police and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 4 July 2006.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Police and Justice Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
684 c192-3 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 23:20:58 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334493
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334493
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334493