Clause 98

– in a Public Bill Committee at 12:30 pm on 10 March 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Bail decisions in murder cases to be made by Crown Court judge

Photo of David Howarth David Howarth Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

I beg to move amendment 486, in clause 98, page 59, line 10, leave out ‘48’ and insert ‘24’.

Photo of Frank Cook Frank Cook Labour, Stockton North

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 487, in clause 98, page 59, line 10, leave out ‘the day after’.

Amendment 488, in clause 98, page 59, line 21, leave out subsection (7).

Photo of David Howarth David Howarth Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

The clause sends bail decisions in murder cases to the Crown court, away from the magistrates court, and I want to ask why that should be. As a matter of practice, magistrates deal with bail applications every day. In fact, one of the main sources of activity in a magistrates court is these difficult and often technical decisions, which are dealt with by magistrates who are expert in them. Crown court judges simply are not. In fact, if one looks at the Weddell case, which I mentioned previously, the problem was that the decision did go to a Crown court judge. It was a Crown court judge who let that individual out on bail. In general, magistrates believe that Crown court judges are too soft in bail decisions, so one questions the policy underlying the clause. However, even if one did not question that policy, one should start to question the detail of how the clause works. We tabled our amendments for precisely that reason.

The Government seem to have been told that if one transfers such decisions from a magistrates court to a Crown court judge, there will be certain practical consequences. One is that a Crown court judge would take a long time to organise—there are fewer Crown court judges than magistrates and it is difficult to fit such applications into their lists. Therefore, the accused—the defendant—will wait three days before receiving a bail hearing, whereas that would be only one day if the bail hearing were to be held in the magistrates court. I question whether holding someone for three days simply to find a Crown court judge is acceptable, when the matter could be dealt with more expeditiously by a magistrate.

Secondly, the clause implies that the Government have been told that Crown court judges do not work on weekends or in holidays, because the clause does not count those days in the period within which a bail hearing has to be heard. A great advantage of magistrates is that they are local and there are a lot of them—magistrates who are prepared to act on weekends can be found. The Saturday magistrates court is a common institution throughout the country.

We end up with the possibility of unacceptable delays—if we add together the three-day delay, a weekend and perhaps a bank holiday, we are looking at nearly a week without a bail hearing, simply because of the nature of Crown court judges as opposed to magistrates. My amendments would therefore get rid of the extra delays designed for the convenience of Crown court judges—the three days and the exemption for weekends and bank holidays—taking the period back to the 24 hours that magistrates operate in

If the Government say in reply that the amendments would make the provision not practicable, it seems to me that the whole clause is impracticable and we should return those decisions to where they should be taken, in a magistrates court.

Photo of Bridget Prentice Bridget Prentice Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice

Either of the changes—the reduction in the upper limit or the removal of the exclusions—would be impracticable individually and, together, wholly so. Secondly, the changes are unnecessary. Most defendants charged with murder are not granted bail and, even under the present system, those who are would not be granted bail by the magistrates courts. Defendants in such categories would not be affected in practical terms if the remand decision was delayed for the maximum period specified in the clause.

There are occasionally murder cases in which there would be a strong argument for remanding the defendant on bail. In those cases, which are rare, arrangements would be made to bring the case before a judge of the Crown court in much less than the 48-hour maximum. In those wholly exceptional cases in which there is a strong argument for immediate bail, the section 51 sending hearing might take place before a district judge who, using the powers available to him as a judge of the Crown court, could consider bail on the spot.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments, which are impracticable and unnecessary.

Photo of David Howarth David Howarth Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

I note with interest that the Minister now agrees with me about how rare the granting of bail in murder cases is—very rare. She is using that very rareness as an argument—quite a good one—for saying that the amendments would make no difference, because in almost all cases the defendant is remanded in custody anyway. That is quite correct. The point is simply about process and whether it is acceptable to have such delays before that hearing, which almost inevitably results in remand in custody, simply because of the desire to have that decision taken by a Crown court judge rather than by a magistrate, who would make the same decision. It seems that the Government have not produced any evidence on which to base the transfer of such cases to the Crown court, especially given the fact that in the exceptional case where it plainly all went wrong, bail was granted by a Crown court judge in the first place. I urge the Government to think about why they are doing this. Is it simply for symbolic reasons? If it is, I urge them to think again. On the basis that the point has been made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.