One other point not covered is the number who re-offended while on bail only a small proportion of whom would have been caught.

[citation needed]

I also know how full the prisons are, with some police stations housing prisoners as well. Sometimes makes it hard to track them down through the system, although eventully the turn up at court. Mind you, I have a preference for my clients to be in custody because then I usually know roughly where they are when I want to speak to them!

Edit: Do you really think we should build more prisons, d4j? What would your cut-off be for no bail? And charlie brown: how recent and what type?

Think about what the article says: Since the changes in the bail laws there was an increase in alleged offenders bailed in the following year.

That is the entirety of the article. So what is wrong with it? Well, firstly it does not tell us how many people were charged with offences in 2006 and 2007, so we cannot see what sort of percentage increase there was, or perhaps there was a decrease. So the figure of 10% more people getting bail is only accurate if there were the same number of people charged in 2007 as there were in 2007. In addition, don’t forget that the Police can appeal a grant of bail to the High Court, so if this is such a bad thing why wasn’t the High Court inundated with Police bail appeals? Or have the Police been slack in their duty to the public?

Secondly, the writer of the article shows no link to the increased numbers of grants of bail to any worsening of the crime rate, or an increase in the rate of offending whilst on bail. Three examples are shown, the first is a youth from Matamata who was appearing in the Youth Court, so different rules apply. The second is Bruce Emery, who was a sitter for bail as he had no previous convictions and was unlikely to offend whilst on bail. The third is about an an accused murderer on bail who died in a car crash, with no reference to the circumstances of the crash at all, and certainly no allegation that this was part of a pattern of continued offending by the accused person. So three of the examples given were empty and irrelevant examples. The Chris Kahui example is an interesting one, because on the face of it he actually was a candidate for bail as I think (but am not certain) that if he had a criminal history it was very minor. And one of those breaches of bail was when the town to which he was bailed drove him out. Of course, this example is problematic because Kahui was acquitted, so if he had been refused bail then he would have spent over 12 months in custody only to be acquitted, with no chance of compensation at the end of it.

Thirdly, the entire premise of the article, and of the opinions of Garth McVicar and Simon Power seems to be that releasing people on bail is a bad thing. They have no evidence of any sudden upsurge in the crime rate as a result, or of any other problems arising whilst on bail. While it may be that persons facing serious charges got bail, there are also persons who do not face serious charges who are denied bail because their criminal history. The justice system operates on a case by case basis, rather than applying a strict rule to everybody. It has to, otherwise injustices occur.

Fourthly, I note with interest Simon Power’s comment that “The Law Society, the Police Association, the Police Prosecution Service, and even a defence lawyer” said it would be easier for accused persons to get bail. Well, apart from the fact that anybody could see that, it concerns me that Mr Power seems to think that defence lawyers are somehow apart from the Law Society. In fact, the Law Society’s opinion would have come from the Criminal Law committee, which is made up primarily of defence lawyers. Even then, it was apparently only one defence lawyer out of 1000 who said this? Ah well.

So the article writer fails to make any point other than more people obtained a grant of bail under the changed rules. The writer has done no other research into whether it made a jot of difference in the crime stats and the anecdotes given are basically worthless. And we are supposed to do what? Feel horror because more people accused of crimes are on the streets? You know, along with the other 48,000 or so bailed defendants? Further, even if it is a 10% increase in grants of bail (which is not certain, as I point out above) is that really a major change? Only an extra 10%? One would have thought the prisons had emptied, by the way the article is written! We are then given the places were bail is given the most, without any comparison to the number of charges, or the changes from the previous year or anything of that nature.

So while it has some interesting stats, the article has no intrinsic value. As GPT said, for most of us the change in the law made no difference. It is not hard for the judge to make a bail decision that is tailored to the wording of the Act so they can achieve their ends, no matter what the law says.

There will always be people who breach their bail at some point. It is a fact of life. The only way to fix it is to refuse bail to all persons accused of any offence, or perhaps any offence with a maximum sentence of more than 1 year imprisonment. Even then, what happens when some little toe-rag charged with theft under $500 goes and offends whilst on bail? Like I said, the justice system has to work on a case by case basis.

So I think this article is a beat up that achieves nothing more than some shock value from what are basically meaningless figures.

To keep bail laws simpler, people with a recent existing conviction should not get bail fullstop, no questions asked. Bail should only be given when the accused has no recent conviction and isn’t likely to offend again.

People that think labours changes to bail laws worked, read up on Michael Curran, the bastard who murdered a todler while on bail for manslaughter.

I suspect that the stats have more to do with more charges and, possibly, increased resolution times (which has the same driver). On the more serious offfending (murder for eg) there does, rightly, seem to be an increased willingness to, at least, test the police case before finally rejecting a bail application and leaving someone to rot for up to 2 years without a conviction.

I doubt there is a more difficult area than bail. No one wants violent offenders on the streets but merely being charged with an offence doesn’t make someone guilty. I have less sympathy for those who s12 apply to (so many qualifying offences that the onus reverses to the defendant) but do we really want the state locking people up on a summary, a history and a 2 page template bail opposition and a mysterious Family Violence score that only the police seem to have the details of?

People think that criminal lawyers are scum, but really we are there to help our fellow man (and in this case man embraces women) at what is usually a tough time in their life. I’ve done civil work and, although it pays a hell of a lot better, I find constantly arguing over money to be pretty boring. The sums they dealing with can be phenomenal, however.

Peterwn: great comment.

Guess Tua knows about your so-called ‘truth’ Smithy. He may just about have made enough in two rounds last night to pay for another round of ‘Justice’ from you guys.

The Senseless Sentencing Trust’s attitude wrongly implies that all alledged offenders are scum and should be treated accordingly. They of course would be most upset if a householder who shot an intruder was remanded in custody – thus they are potentially two faced.

Never forget despite the best efforts of the Rickards et al of this world Cops still rate a long way above Lawyers in the reptile ratings.

http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com

Reid: It is an ambulance at the bottom, but when done well it can show the offender the result of their actions. I have seen it have some good results, but it isn’t a cure-all.

Backster: spoken like a true cop- everybody is a crim, they just haven’t been caught yet…