THE PROFESSIONAL BODY FOR POLICING

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail Improving Standards for the Police Forces of England and Wales

2014

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

College of Policing Limited Leamington Road Ryton-on-Dunsmore Coventry, CV8 3EN Publication date: December 2014 © College of Policing Limited (2014) You may copy, republish, distribute, transmit and combine information featured in this publication (excluding logos) with other information, free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Non-Commercial College Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.college.police.uk/docs/ Non_Commercial_College_Licence.pdf You may not adapt, modify, translate or summarise any part of this publication nor use the information in any manner which is primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, without the prior written permission of the College. © College of Policing 2014

You must reproduce the information accurately and not use it in a way that misleads others, misrepresents, suggests any official status, or that the College endorses you or your work. Where College information is being republished or copied to others, the College must be identified as the source of the information and its copyright status acknowledged with the following attribution statement: © College of Policing Limited (2014). Any licence applications or enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] Where we have identified any third-party copyright information, you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. To seek permission to use our logo, email [email protected]

OFFICIAL

ii

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Contents Foreword

2

Introduction

3

Contact information

3

Complaints or comments

3

Glossary of terms

4

Executive summary

5

Background

6

What is pre-charge bail?

6

Consultation origins

6

Consultation 7 Analysis of results Discussion of key themes Support for the principles

7 9 9

Time limits on bail

10

Impacts of third-party delay

12

Response to the consultation

13

Standardised process needed (governance)

13

Concerns in respect of re-bail and frequency

14

Third-party delays

15

Recommendations and conclusions Next steps Appendix A – analysis of consultation responses

16 17 18

Appendix B – existing bail principles, published October 2013 23 Appendix C – all responses

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

25

1

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Foreword We are extremely grateful to all those who have taken the time to respond to this consultation. Pre-charge bail, sometimes called police bail, is an important tool for bringing offenders to justice, and protecting victims and communities. It is encouraging to have received a range of responses from people and organisations in policing, criminal justice, law and the wider public. The purpose of this consultation was to address whether bail principles introduced as Authorised Professional Practice in October 2013 are effective in raising standards and bringing greater consistency and transparency to the use of police bail in forces across the country. Overall, respondents felt that the principles are effective in regulating and standardising the application of pre-charge bail when they are an established part of the practices and systems which govern precharge bail in police forces. The consultation exposed concerns and a need for further action in three key areas: •• more standardised processes •• greater management around the amount of time spent on bail and frequency of the re-bailing of suspects •• better partnership working with others in the criminal justice system to deal with third-party delays. To meet those concerns we have made a number of recommendations, which include reinforcing the principles with clear standards, to support police forces in implementing management systems around pre-charge bail and achieving greater consistency across the country. The home secretary has indicated that the government will consult on introducing statutory time limits on the use of pre-charge bail. The College of Policing consultation explored the operational use of police bail rather than the statutory basis of the power, which is outside the College’s scope. This work, however, has provided an important opportunity for all criminal justice agencies to review processes to ensure they are as efficient and effective as possible in anticipation of any future legislation in this area. Pre-charge bail allows the police to protect victims and witnesses of crime, secure and preserve evidence, and ensure that justice is executed. Applying conditions means that the police can manage a suspect within the community, while continuing an investigation and allowing a suspect to maintain a relatively normal routine, in recognition of their status as a person under investigation and not an offender. However, it is bad for victims, suspects and the criminal justice service for people to spend long periods on pre-charge bail, living with the uncertainty that it brings. The police service is committed to keeping that period as short as possible so that those who have a genuine case to answer are brought to court and those who do not can return to their normal lives.

ACC Alison Roome-Gifford, Hertfordshire © College of Policing 2014

Chief Constable Alex Marshall CEO, College of Policing

OFFICIAL

2

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Introduction This document is the College of Policing’s response to the public consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail – Improving Standards for the Police Forces of England and Wales, published on 27 March 2014. The response covers: •• the background to the consultation •• the response to the main issues raised in the consultation •• the next steps following the consultation •• a detailed response to the specific questions raised in the consultation (Appendix A).

Contact information Further copies of this report and the consultation paper can be obtained by contacting the Criminal Justice Faculty at: College of Policing Riverside House 2A Southwark Bridge Road London SE1 9HA Email: [email protected] Alternative format versions of this publication can be requested from [email protected]. police.uk

Complaints or comments If you have any complaints or comments about the consultation process, please contact the College of Policing at the above address.

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

3

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Glossary of terms ACPO

Association of Chief Police Officers

APACE

Association of Policing and Crime Chief Executives

CEO

Chief Executive Officer

CJBA

Criminal Justice Business Area

CJS

Criminal Justice Service

CPS

Crown Prosecution Service

File Quality Working Group

In order to address shortcomings in the area of file quality a working group was established with all relevant CJS partners, HMIC and the Home Office, to develop a process and culture where all case files submitted are of a sufficient quality to enable the matter to be progressed with minimal remedial work

HMCPSI

Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

HMIC

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary

MG11

Key witness statement

NTAC

National Technical Assistance Centre

PACE

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

SPOC

Single point of contact

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

4

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Executive summary Respondents felt that the bail principles are effective in regulating and standardising the application of pre-charge bail, when they are an established part of the practices and systems governing pre-charge bail in police forces. The consultation did not reveal any evidence of a systemic issue with the use of the bail principles. The use of pre-charge bail has been subject to some public and media attention, and the consultation touched on some of these issues, but they were not the objective of the consultation. Individual principles could be improved and clarified by making certain minor amendments and revisions as required. There will always be matters of complex, serious and organised crime that require bespoke attention and review of the risks and issues for all parties involved. In other words, there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach and any system to regulate the use of bail must be flexible. However, we recognise that a stronger emphasis on clear standards could help encourage greater consistency and influence the responses of all criminal justice partners. Four recommendations are being made: 1. Reinforcing the principles with clear standards. 2. Each force should nominate a bail SPOC. 3. Creation of an annual self-assessment process for bail. 4. HMIC and HMCPSI should inspect against the standards and self-assessment criteria. In response to the consultation and recommendations the College will: •• Remove the principles and create standards as part of police guidance – known as Authorised Professional Practice – suggesting a tiered escalation of the authority needed to extend bail duration and enhancing governance across the end-to-end process. •• Develop a self-assessment process for forces, to provide an evidence base in respect of performance around the country and embed a continuous improvement cycle. •• Integrate the standards within our self-assessment process for police forces so that they can measure how they are managing bail. •• Work with HMIC to ensure that their thematic inspection regime considers an examination of the way police forces are implementing the standards (we will encourage similar support from HMCPSI). •• Use the inspection and self-assessment regime to provide the evidence base for further regulation. •• Continue to review the police use of pre-charge bail to ensure that it is being used to protect victims and suspects in a proportionate, legitimate and fair way. We will follow the results of the inspections and assessments closely and take further action if necessary.

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

5

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Background What is pre-charge bail? Pre-charge bail, sometimes called police bail, is an important tool in bringing offenders to justice and protecting victims and communities. It also minimises the length of time suspects are detained while enquiries are made. Prior to charging a suspect with a crime, there are broadly two scenarios where the police are required to grant bail with or without conditions: 1. Where there is as yet insufficient evidence to charge a suspect with an offence and it is necessary to continue to investigate without them being held in custody. See section 37(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). 2. Where the police consider there is sufficient evidence to charge the suspect, but the case has been referred to the CPS for a charging decision. See sections 37(7) (a) – 37 (7) (c) of PACE. The police may detain a suspect for up to 24 hours prior to charge. Where the offence being investigated is indictable (can be dealt with at the crown court) detention can be extended to 36 hours on the authority of a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent. A warrant of further detention issued by the magistrates’ court would be required to extend detention beyond 36 hours, to a maximum of 96 hours. In order to avoid prolonged periods of detention, the police have the power to grant bail to allow them to make further enquiries. This stops the detention clock while the police undertake outstanding enquiries. Bail is an important police tool for: •• protecting victims and witnesses of crime •• securing and preserving evidence •• ensuring the effective execution of justice. Applying conditions means that the police can manage a suspect effectively within the community while further investigations progress. This recognises their status as a person under investigation and not an offender, thereby preserving their rights and liberties, and allowing them to maintain a normal routine. It also acknowledges the sensitivities of victims, witnesses and communities by offering some level of protection and mitigating the risk of further criminality.

Consultation origins In response to concerns about the consistency, transparency and rigour behind the use of pre-charge bail, the College of Policing was approached by the national policing criminal justice business area, headed by Chief Constable Chris Eyre, and the Home Office to develop principles of good practice. © College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

6

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Following the pre-charge bail review conducted by Nottinghamshire Police on behalf of national policing in June 2013, bail principles were published and included in Authorised Professional Practice in October 2013. These can be found at Appendix B. After the principles had been established throughout the police service, the College of Policing committed to consult on the impact and effectiveness of the principles. This would allow any gaps in procedures, guidance or the principles to be closed. The public consultation started on 27 March 2014 and concluded on 21 July 2014.

Consultation The consultation paper was posted on the College of Policing’s website. It posed four questions: 1. What concerns, if any, do you have about the use of pre-charge bail? 2. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? There needs to be a more formal structure to manage the use of pre-charge police bail: Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know. 3. Bail principles provide a managerial framework for the use of bail. What amendments, additions or alternative methods would you wish to see included in the bail principles? 4. What other views do you have on the use of police bail? The College publicised the consultation widely, approaching the media, stakeholders and partners in policing to encourage the widest range of responses.

Analysis of results The consultation attracted 89 responses. Responses came from police forces (on behalf of an entire police force), individual police officers, partners with a responsibility or interest in this area of police work, including the Crown Prosecution Service, Liberty and the Law Society, and the public. A full list is included at Appendix C. © College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

7

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

The majority of responses came from individual police employees, closely followed by almost equal numbers of responses from external stakeholders and returns from police forces. A full breakdown is provided at Appendix A. As most of the data was qualitative, we aggregated the returns against 18 recurrent themes. Appendix A provides a full breakdown of the results. The most frequently reoccurring themes were: 1. Standardised process needed – 58.4% 2. Concerns around re-bail and frequency – 51.7% 3. Third-party delays – 47.2%. These results were peer reviewed for consistency. The College of Policing’s research team quality assured the approach and methods, and reviewed the findings. The team confirmed that they were satisfied that we had taken a robust and systematic approach to analysing the responses to the consultation. Of those who answered the structured questions (29.2% of responders did not follow the structured format), the majority ‘strongly agreed’ that a more formal structure was required for pre-charge bail. The police community accounted for 61.9% of those who did ‘strongly agree’.

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

8

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Discussion of key themes Support for the principles Generally, respondents were in support of the principles and their aims, although minor adjustments and revisions have been suggested. Nevertheless, results suggested that the levels of impact and integration of the principles varied from force to force, and inconsistent levels of implementation were reported. We have included some examples of the comments made regarding the effectiveness of the current principles. Thames Valley Police There is … an agreement from TVP that these principles are a good thing. The current TVP Bail Policy reflects the majority of what is in the CoP [College] bail principles. Bedfordshire Police Bedfordshire Police already adhere to the guidelines listed in the Consultation and they work well. Any further restrictions would provide a barrier to performance in the creation of bureaucracy. Dyfed Powys Police We believe that the principles are an effective way to allow Police Forces the flexibility to manage pre-charge bail. University of Leeds Most of the bail principles outlined in the consultation have merit but without complementary strategies they are unlikely to have the desired effect. Lancashire Constabulary Nine of the ten national principles form a natural part of this process. A full breakdown of who responded is included at Appendix C. There was a strong argument that police and prosecutors were using pre-charge bail to manage investigations at their own pace. Around a third of respondents (37.1%) highlighted that the impact of financial cuts had been an issue affecting the levels of resourcing.

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

9

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Time limits on bail Several consultation responses featured a call for definite timescales, dictating how long a person can remain on bail. This ranged from a four-month statutory limit (Police Foundation) to a six-month maximum (Liberty) or caps to the number of occasions a suspect can be the subject of further re-bail. There was, however, recognition of the difficulties of using a rigid framework to manage all police responses to issuing bail, because the necessity for arrest can vary from an immediate response to a 999 call, to situations where evidence gathering will take place more slowly. Liberty is strongly in favour of the use of legislative time constraints. Liberty believes that ‘… introducing a six-month limit is a straightforward and sensible way of reducing the harm that the existing system is causing to suspects and victims alike.’ Police officers themselves expressed frustrations in relation to the process, which can be inhibited by third-party delay. A detective constable from Sussex Police stated: It angers me to have to re-bail suspects even when I have given them a long bail date in the first instance … I have also on occasions had to re-bail suspects due to the CPS not being able to turn around advice files in time, again this was not my fault but could in the future place forces under the spotlight for failings that are no fault of their officers … Other forces have shown that there can be further exacerbating factors affecting the length of the investigative process. This is often determined by the type of alleged criminality and evidence available, as a detective constable from the Metropolitan Police explains: I am an experienced fraud investigator and more often than not I have to arrest suspects at an early stage to prevent serious and substantial losses to victims. When enquiries reveal money being transferred to foreign jurisdictions these enquiries can take months if not years to complete. Letters of request need to be compiled and sanctioned by the Crown Prosecution Service and subsequently the Home Office. The same scrutiny takes place in that foreign jurisdiction with the need for government officials to sign off the request. I have examples of both Australia and Hong Kong taking over a year to comply with a standard request. But having received the initial information I needed to compile a further follow up request as a result of information contained in original evidence package. This really does take a long time.

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

10

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

This has been supported by outside agencies, for example: HMRC cases are exceptional in nature due to their complexity, international elements and significant increase in need for digital forensics analysis. HMRC has concerns that any moves to impose a rigid initial 28 day period would be impracticable. Whilst there is a degree of understanding that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, the initial bail period should be no more than 28 days. There should be an ability to exceed this time limit, as long as it is justified and recorded … It has been clear that the initial bail period of 28 days is insufficient, resulting in the need to re-bail, and numerous forces have offered explanations in this regard. An Inspector from Durham Police discussed some of the various reasons: Officers will request a bail period to allow them to carry out any further enquiries, however on many occasions the Bail Period is insufficient for the amount and extent of enquiries required. This ultimately means the need to grant more time and further Bail periods to allow the investigation to be completed. On certain occasions Medical Evidence is not available and officers are relying on the opinion of a ‘medical expert’ to support or even prove their case. Delays occur through communication issues, identifying the appropriate medical practitioner, the medical practitioner’s workload/priorities and the type of evidence requested. It has been the view of many respondents that ‘the date set for bail should be appropriate to the nature of the offence and evidence being sought’ (Metropolitan Police). In considering how the criminal justice sector might cope with imposed time limits, many have concerns about the unintended consequence and burden which may be imposed at a time of staff reduction and austerity measures. It is not only a view of the police service that strict time limits may not be workable, this is supported by those at Leeds University who, from their research, express concerns ‘… about imposing time limits on bail periods because of unforeseen circumstances which prolong investigations’. The Metropolitan Police has expressed support regarding the need for ‘… a more senior officer to authorise re-bail …’ however, they acknowledge ‘… many areas are reducing the number of senior officers as a means of reducing cost. This proposal may therefore introduce capacity issues generally.’ The Law Society acknowledges this dilemma requesting that ‘… in those cases where additional time is sought as a result of a lack of adequate resourcing, which often seems to be the case in relation to examination of digital equipment, it is right that this should be transparent and in the public domain.’

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

11

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Impacts of third-party delay To some extent this issue overlaps with that of appropriate timescales around length of bail and the frequency of re-bail. There appears to be a direct causal link between the performance of criminal justice system (CJS) stakeholders and the speed of investigations. Concerns have been expressed regarding the speed and quality of third-party contributions to investigations, which are essential to building a case, and this seems to affect opinion on whether maximum bail durations should be imposed. There also seems to be a general concern that policing will be held to account for external failings, for example, a chief inspector from South Yorkshire Police explains that: Where investigations rely on external agencies i.e, CPS, Forensic Science etc. it is impossible to apply time constraints over which we have no control. In addition to the examples provided in Time limits on bail, further statements detail the types of delay experienced across the country. An investigator from Cleveland Police refers to an advice file submitted to the CPS on 17 February which, when checked on 2 April, still had not been assigned to anyone. Others express concern about the cuts faced by the CJS and the impact on service provision. A detective sergeant from Sussex and Surrey comments: … the 6 week time period for CPS advice files is not being met regularly, no doubt due to the cuts in resourcing … The same is true in the Police. If you have 20% fewer staff to do the same amount of work, then inevitably it will take longer to complete enquiries as a whole. Further, British Transport Police comments that: The CPS often make unnecessary requests for additional evidence such as CCTV or additional MG11s before making a charging decision. These additional requirements cause unnecessary periods of bail. One of the greatest concerns is that there are no national standards to govern timescales for CPS decisions.

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

12

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Response to the consultation Individual responses to the consultation have not been published in full because of the personal information contained within some of them. We have set out below our response to the key issues arising from the consultation.

Standardised process needed (governance) From the responses received, standardisation of process appeared to be the primary theme because of the level of discretion available to the investigating officer in terms of arrest and bail. A notable criticism was that there was too little investigation preceding arrests, resulting in bail providing ‘fishing expedition’ opportunities (Bindmans LLP). Another reason given for the entire process appearing difficult to understand was that the prosecution does not routinely communicate the context of bail decisions to the suspect or their legal representative. Concerns were noted that more formal structures or legislative constraints would potentially restrict the use of bail and affect the ability of the police to manage their communities effectively. The Police Superintendents’ Association suggested better investigative management as an alternative. A view that appears to be widely shared across both the police service and the CPS is that the key to reducing pre-charge bail periods is efficient and effective evidence gathering, and that more targeted investigations should be encouraged (Crown Prosecution Service). The incorrect application of the necessity test (Durham Police) and insufficient supervision have been put forward as the root cause for some of the inconsistencies reported. A number of respondents supported formal decision structures for bail and re-bail (an example was that of Dyfed Powys Police). In summary, it was generally recognised that the police, in particular, were keen for some direction and control in this area, to create consistency across police force boundaries. Police responses represented 61.9% of those who ‘strongly agreed’ to standardisation of process (this refers to those who followed the consultation question format only). However, some practitioners are resistant to standardisation because it cuts down on police discretion and, therefore, they are less able to respond to complex and unusual cases. Some further concern was noted from external partners who support the prosecution process, such as forensics suppliers and the CPS. They were worried about the imposition of particularly burdensome deadlines because of their own resource constraints. A common view was that the initial 28-day review point was wholly unattainable.

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

13

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Concerns in respect of re-bail and frequency Many of the same types of issue that were used to justify a call for the standardisation of process also appear under this theme. •• Too little information given for re-bail – there is no standardisation of process, and a frequency of re-bail rate of 8-10 times is not unusual (LCCSA). •• No overall time limits for bail nor the frequency of re-bail. •• Too little investigation preceding arrests (although this does not apply where arrests are made as a matter of urgency to secure and preserve evidence, while protecting the victims and witnesses of crime). •• No overall assessment of bail conditions, their effects or effectiveness in mitigating risks, scrutiny and impact on the suspect as a result of their duration. There is also a suggestion that we should be taking into account defence representations in this regard. •• There is little scope for redress when pre-charge bail conditions are breached. The only option is to simply re-arrest and re-bail, thereby adding to the frequency and occurrence of re-bail. It has been suggested that breach of pre-charge bail should be a summary offence as is failing to surrender to bail. Since the consultation and the initial review of the responses, there has been a ministerial commitment to consult on statutory time limits on the use of pre-charge bail, to prevent people spending months or even years on bail only for no charges to be brought. Consultation responses suggest concerns if a less flexible process were to inhibit police responding to the needs of victims, witnesses and the community. By introducing clear standards, there may be opportunities to enhance confidence in decisions by increasing the authority levels required to grant bail for specified periods and/or to re-bail where investigations have been insufficiently progressed. In considering whether to cap bail, responses to the consultation have urged us to take into account the range of contributions required from external partners. The police have no control over these, but they heavily influence the operation of the bail process.

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

14

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Third-party delays Responses from police forces and individual officers suggested that they believe they are often held to account for delays which are the fault of third parties. For example, one respondent from Derbyshire Police said: We are increasingly reliant on examination of digital media such as mobile phones and computers. High level criminals from organised crime groups take great steps to conceal evidence from authorities and often a device with PIN code or password takes time to bypass. An examination by the HTCU [Hi-tech Crime Unit] can easily take 6–8 weeks, if not longer. If they cannot bypass a PIN code then the device can be sent to NTAC. The authorisation process can take 4 weeks and the examination 4–6 weeks. Once the PIN is bypassed (if successful), it is returned to the HTCU to progress the download which can again take 4–6 weeks. A simple seizure of a mobile phone can therefore easily take 18–24 weeks (4.5–6 months). If you then start talking about a computer exam which is more detailed than a mobile phone exam, the time is increased. A recent case that I have dealings with had a total of 9 suspects, 28 mobile phones and 7 computers. Among other concerns raised were delays caused by forensic examinations, NHS requests for information, and CPS requests for information and decisions. Other respondents strongly disagreed with these claims (for example, Liberty). Some respondents also pointed to poor quality of police submissions as a reason for extended delays. There is work taking place to improve performance in this area, championed by the File Quality Working Group. Work towards the digital case file, as part of the Criminal Justice Efficiency Programme, should also see improvements in file quality. Nevertheless, where there are issues with file quality, these are not always notified promptly, resulting in further delays. There was a general perception that officers in a case needed to be firm in agreeing deadlines with police partners and emphasising the importance, necessity and urgency of their contribution/actions. Realistic bail dates need to be agreed with all parties to the outcome, and this needs robust cross-agency management.

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

15

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Recommendations and conclusions The College believes that the principles themselves are effective but could be improved following lessons learnt from their application. Forces appear to have applied the principles to differing extents, which has affected their impact. To some extent the principles are seen as the gold standard rather than the norm. As a direct result of these findings the following recommendations are made. Recommendation 1 Reinforcing the principles with clear standards. We recommend reinforcing the bail principles with clear service standards. In order to achieve this a small working group has been convened, comprising key criminal justice stakeholders, to create and publish the standards as a matter of urgency. As part of the standards, we will consider a hierarchy to escalate the decision making, depending on the length of proposed bail, conditions and whether the suspect is the subject of a further re-bail or not. This will equally apply to the process for re-bail. We will be recommending that the initial period of bail takes account of the outstanding investigative activities and is realistic. This must be explained to the suspect and their defence, and defence representations must be considered. For example, if the investigating officer knows that a doctor’s report will take in excess of six weeks, they are supported when they bail the suspect for that period, thus managing expectations around the process and ensuring that the suspect knows why the bail period has been set. This will provide greater transparency. Recommendation 2 Each police force should nominate a bail SPOC. Where forces have had or still have a bail SPOC, their bail management is greatly improved. Having this post gives someone overall responsibility for bail and so there is an enhanced approach to its management. We will follow up on this recommendation as part of the selfassessment process. Recommendation 3 Creation of an annual self-assessment process for bail. In recognition of the need to better understand the scope of the problems surrounding police use of pre-charge bail, we are recommending that an assessment process needs to be implemented as soon as 2015–16. This will help us to build an evidence base around bail management.

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

16

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Recommendation 4 That HMIC and HMCPSI should inspect against the standards and self-assessment criteria. The College wishes to ensure that the police and criminal justice community is well supported to achieve appropriate reductions in length and frequency of bail. We will work with Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate to ensure that where inspections occur, assessments are made against standards set by the College.

Next Steps •• A working group has been convened and has meetings scheduled regularly until the end of this year. •• Dialogue and joint working has started with both the CPS and HMIC. •• The College’s Criminal Justice Faculty has begun a review of the principles. Once agreed by the working group, these will be submitted for review as part of the publications process and converted into standards. •• The College, in conjunction with national policing, will write to all chief constables and police and crime commissioners to publicise our activities and advise on progress. •• We are working with HMIC and HMCPSI to look at a form of qualitative assessment of bail management in the next 12–18 months. •• We are producing a self-assessment framework for police forces to assess their use and management of police bail, for distribution in 2015.

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

17

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Appendix A – analysis of consultation responses We acknowledge that there could be a duplication in the overall police response to the consultation (and consequently an in-built bias to the views) in that police corporate responses could be heavily influenced by individuals in forces with strong views who have also responded as individuals. That is unless those responding as individuals are from forces that have not provided a response, which is the case in some instances. We had 89 responses to the consultation, the types of which can be categorised as shown below.

Response to the consultation exercise on the principles for pre-charge bail

Police force Police individual Police other External stakeholder Public

Numerical breakdown

© College of Policing 2014

Police force

23

Police individual

32

Police other

5

External stakeholders

21

Public

8

Total

89

OFFICIAL

18

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

As previously indicated, there was a formal structure of four consultation questions posed in the document. However, 29.2% failed to follow this formal framework in favour of free text responses outside the question structure. Of those who did respond, a majority supported a more formal structure for the use of pre-charge bail. To what extent do you agree with the following statement, ‘There needs to be a more formal structure to manage the use of pre-charge bail’?

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Not specified

Numerical breakdown

© College of Policing 2014

Strongly agree

21

Agree

18

Neither agree nor disagree

3

Disagree

15

Strongly disagree

1

Don’t know

0

No answer

31

Total

89

OFFICIAL

19

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Of those respondents, a greater proportion represented the police community Public External stakeholder Police other Police individuals Police force Total 0 Strongly agree

Agree

10

20

30

Neither agree nor disagree

40

50

Disagree

60

70

80

Strongly disagree

90

100

Not specified

Numerical breakdown Number of responses Answer

Total

Police force

Police individuals

Police other

External stakeholder

Public

Strongly agree

21

7

6

0

5

3

Agree

18

4

8

0

6

0

Neither agree nor disagree

3

1

1

1

0

0

Disagree

15

6

5

2

2

0

Strongly disagree

1

0

1

0

0

0

Not specified

31

5

11

2

8

5

Don’t know

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

89

23

32

5

21

8

In order to categorise the free text responses, a framework was produced which looked at identifying key themes, and 18 were identified. Their appearance was tracked across the reviews.

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

20

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Key issues raised – frequency 53

Time limits Standardisation of bail process

52

Re-bail and frequency

46

External stakeholder delay

42 37

Authoritative hierarchy

35

Preparatory investigation

33

Resource issues

30

Bail conditions – effectiveness and proportionality Reviews

22

Objective – Quasi-judicial process

21 19

Bail conditions – consistency

17

Legislative review required – yes Training

16

Communications

15

Data collection required

15

Bail conditions – no sanction for breach

13

Safeguards

13 10

Negative effects on investigation 4

Legislative review required – no 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

The main themes were: 1. Standardisation of Process Needed 58.4% 2. Re-bail and Frequency 51.7% 3. External Stakeholder Delays 47.2% 4. Authoritative Hierarchy 41.6% 5. Resource Issues 37.1% 6. Bail Conditions – Effectiveness and Proportionality 33.7%. © College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

21

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Owing to the absence of true quantitative data, only the first three themes have been covered in any detail in this report. It should also be noted that there is a great deal of overlap between the causal links, resulting in the derivation of these themes. Much of this information is subject to interpretation because of the subjectivity of the returns. Regarding the issue of external stakeholder delays, it is clear from negotiations with the parties involved that many of the issues are individual perceptions. They are unhelpful in establishing root cause and they do not assist in truly defining accurate problem statements, as further analysis has highlighted issues across agencies, some of which are case specific. Third-party delays – perceived issues

CPS Forensic HTCU/computer exam Health and social care Not specified

Numerical breakdown CPS

23

Forensic

14

HTCU/computer exam

4

Health and social care

2

Not specified

9

Total

52

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

22

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Appendix B – existing bail principles, published October 2013 First period of detention Forces must strive to finalise investigations during the first period of detention. Any reason for initial bail (or subsequent re-bail) should be noted explicitly in the custody record. Those making bail decisions must consider proportionality, legality and necessity, and their decisions must be able to withstand scrutiny. Reason for bail Unless seeking advice or a charging decision from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), pre-charge bail should be used only to assist officers to carry out a thorough investigation. Officers should consider what the key evidence is at the earliest opportunity and make every effort to gather it in the first period of detention. Bail periods Bail periods must be proportionate to the enquiries that are necessary to finalise the investigation. In the first instance, unless there are exceptional circumstances, the bail period should be no more than 28 days, and in many instances it should be less than that. Any time in excess of this should be justified and recorded in the custody record. Bail for CPS charge decisions Bail for Crown Prosecution Service Direct (CPSD) charge decisions should be for no longer than 72 hours, used only when necessary, and not routinely. Bail in serious offence cases (such as sexual offences) should be monitored regularly by the police and CPS staff to ensure that it is not excessive and is in accordance with national guidance. Advice files Forces should agree locally a reasonable time period for CPS decisions on advice files. These should be managed through the performance meetings in order to avoid multiple re-bails or prolonged periods of bail. As a guideline, six weeks should be the maximum. Advice files contain details of evidence obtained. They are compiled so that the CPS can assess whether there is sufficient evidence to charge a suspect. This is likely to be required in serious or complex cases. Re-bail authority Decisions to re-bail suspects1 should be escalated to a supervising officer for review. Justification for any re-bail should be recorded in the custody record. A second re-bail should be escalated to a more senior officer and so on. The reasons for re-bail should be detailed in the custody record and endorsed by the supervising officer. 1

Amended from ‘offenders’ in the original version.

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

23

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

If the police or the person on bail wishes to amend the bail date, a police supervisor, usually a sergeant, must be satisfied that the enquiry is being conducted diligently and expeditiously. Bail management All forces should have a single point of contact who has responsibility and accountability for force-wide issues relating to bail. They oversee the use of bail and ensure that progress is being made on enquiries that resulted in the need for bail. Bail data All forces should evidence, monitor and ensure that information and data on bail is transparent. Such information may (but not exclusively) include the: •• number of persons on bail •• number of bail occasions not answered •• number of persons re-bailed •• number of occasions re-bailed per case •• length of re-bails. Forces may wish to review outcomes post bail in order to analyse its longer-term effect on criminal justice outcomes. They may also seek to identify their greatest risks in relation to bail in order to gain improved understanding of appropriate application. An example of this could be the use of bail for offences committed by foreign nationals. Forces may also wish to critically examine more qualitative information where it is available, for example: •• re-bail by category of offence, or •• data concerning the needs or vulnerabilities of a detainee. Active management Bail should be an area that is actively managed internally and in conjunction with partners, for example, by raising any issues at relevant performance or cross-agency meetings to resolve any barriers or issues. Alternatives to custody Forces should consider alternatives to custody, particularly in view of changes to PACE Code G regarding the necessity to arrest, and the appropriate use of out-of-court disposals.

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

24

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

Appendix C – all responses 1

External Stakeholder

Kingsley Napley LLP

18

External Stakeholder

Law Society

2

External Stakeholder

Bindmans LLP

19

External Stakeholder

Criminal Bar Association

3

External Stakeholder

Netpol

20

External Stakeholder

Kate Hyndley – children's lawyer

4

Police Professional

Police Federation

21

External Stakeholder

Bedfordshire Police Christian Police Federation

5

External Stakeholder

London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association

22

Police Professional

Kent Police

6

Police Professional

Hertfordshire Police

23

Police Professional

South Yorkshire Police

7

Public

Non disclosed

24

External Stakeholder

Lansbury Worthington Solicitors

8

Public

Chris Saltrese Solicitors representing client

25

External Stakeholder

Boyce and Co. Solicitors

9

Police Professional

Wiltshire Police

26

External Stakeholder

Centre for Crime and Justice Studies

10

Police Professional

Dyfed-Powys Police

27

External Stakeholder

Association of Policing & Crime Chief Executives

11

Police Professional

GMP

28

Police Professional

BTP

12

Police Professional

PC (Hampshire)

29

Public

Non disclosed

13

Police Professional

TVP

30

Police Professional

Merseyside Police

14

Public

Non disclosed

31

External Stakeholder

Fellowes Solicitors LLP

15

Police Professional

Hampshire Constabulary

32

External Stakeholder

Police Superintendents’ Association

16

External Stakeholder

HMRC

33

External Stakeholder

CPS

17

External Stakeholder

Professor Anthea Hucklesby University of Leeds

34

Police Professional

Northamptonshire Police

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

25

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

35

Police Professional

Sussex and Surrey Police

54

Police Professional

DC response CPIU Herts

36

Police Professional

Met Police

55

Police Professional

DS response Economic Crime Unit Sussex

37

Police Professional

Suffolk/Norfolk Police

56

Police Professional

PS response West Mids

38

Police Professional

Staffordshire Police

57

External Stakeholder

Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

39

Police Professional

Cleveland Police

58

Police Professional

DC response Sussex

40

External Stakeholder

Lansbury Worthington Solicitors

59

Police Professional

DI response West Yorks

41

External Stakeholder

North Yorkshire Youth Justice Service

60

Police Professional

Custody Officers Avon and Somerset

42

Police Professional

North Wales Police

61

Public

Non disclosed

43

Police Professional

Custody Officer West Mids Police

62

Police Professional

Staff response Dorset Police

44

Police Professional

Staff – Met Police

63

Police Professional

Staff South Wales Police

45

Police Professional

West Yorkshire Police

64

External Stakeholder

The Howard League for Penal Reform

46

Police Professional

Merseyside Police Federation

65

Police Professional

Gloucestershire Constabulary

47

Police Professional

TVP Independent Response

66

Police Professional

DS response Derbyshire Police

48

Public

Non disclosed

67

Police Professional

DC response Derbyshire Police

49

Police Professional

DC response Metropolitan Police Fraud Squad

68

Police Professional

Staff response Derbyshire Police Supt response Gloucestershire Constabulary

50

Public

Non disclosed

69

Police Professional

51

Public

Non disclosed

70

Police Professional

PS response Northants Police

52

Police Professional

PC response Wiltshire Police

71

Police Professional

PS response TVP

53

Police Professional

T/Detective Sergeant response Hampshire Police

72

Police Professional

Individual Cleveland Police

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

26

OFFICIAL

Response to the Consultation on the Use of Pre-Charge Bail

73

Police Professional

PS response Dorset Police

74

External Stakeholder

LCJB TVP

75

Police Professional

PS response Met

76

Police Professional

Staff response Avon and Somerset Police

77

Police Professional

DS response Essex Road Traffic

78

Police Professional

Sgt response Kent

79

Police Professional

DC response TVP

80

External Stakeholder

Liberty

81

Police Professional

Leicestershire Constabulary

82

External Stakeholder

The Police Foundation

83

External Stakeholder

Youth Justice Board

84

Police Professional

Lancashire Police

85

Police Professional

Det Chief Supt response Leicestershire

86

Police Professional

Durham Police (Insp response)

87

Police Professional

City of London Police Response

88

Police Professional

Kent Police

89

Police Professional

TVP Williams, PC Responses

© College of Policing 2014

OFFICIAL

27

Protecting the public Supporting the fight against crime As the professional body for policing, the College of Policing sets high professional standards to help forces cut crime and protect the public. We are here to give everyone in policing the tools, skills and knowledge they need to succeed. We will provide practical and common-sense approaches based on evidence of what works.

Follow us @CollegeofPolice

C156I1214