Restricting the use of backed for bail warrants
04 Jul 2007
The consultation on restricting the use of backed for bail warrants was published on 28th December 2006 and the 12 week consultation period ended on 19th March 2007. A total of thirty-one responses were received from a variety of stakeholders. A list of respondents can be found at Annex A.
The consultation paper outlined the various problems posed by backed for bail warrants, identified examples of good practice in reducing the use of backed for bail warrants, and sought views on whether legislation was required further to restrict their use.
Three specific questions were asked:
Question 1: Would further legislation help in restricting backed for bail warrants?
Question 2: Which of the five legislative options outlined in the consultation paper is likely to be most effective in further restricting the use of backed for bail warrants?
Question 3: Should the decision whether to legislate and, if so, which option to choose, be postponed until further evidence of likely impact is available as a result of the good practice work currently being undertaken?
Further information about the consultation is available from:
Aidan Wilkie, Project Delivery Unit, Office for Criminal Justice Reform, Ground Floor, Fry Building, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Summary of Responses
While agreeing that further work was required to address some of the issues arising from the use of backed for bail warrants, the vast majority of the respondents to the consultation did not believe that legislation was the correct course of action to restrict their use. A number of reasons were given for this.
There was a general view that removal or severe restriction of backed for bail warrants could, in some cases, result in a disproportionately severe response to a defendant's failure to appear: a bail warrant was regarded as a proportionate and pragmatic response in certain circumstances, for example when the offence was minor and there was no evidence that the defendant would fail to appear again. It was suggested that legislation in this area would interfere with judicial discretion and the ability of the Courts to make decisions in light of the circumstances of an individual case.
Respondents were of the view that where there were problems, these appeared to arise locally with the use and management of backed for bail warrants in certain areas. The general consensus was that this could be solved more effectively through the dissemination of good practice, along the lines proposed in the relevant section of the consultation paper.
Given this majority view that legislation was not appropriate, there were few responses to the second question in the consultation paper, which sought views on five potential legislative options. The majority of those who did consider the options rejected them all. Respondents felt that a complete abolition of bail warrants would be the only effective method of limiting their use. However, all but one respondent rejected this option as inappropriate. Some offered the view that the most feasible option would be "removing the Court's power to issue repeated bail warrants in the same proceedings".
Respondents were agreed on the need for work to continue on the development of good practice guidance, in tandem with further research to establish the extent and nature of problems with backed for bail warrants. Further statistical research would also allow for monitoring the impact of effective practice sharing. Those in favour of legislation suggested that further analysis was unnecessary.
Government response
The Government is grateful to all those who responded to the consultation exercise on restricting the use of backed for bail warrants. It is clear that there is a strong commitment to ensuring that those who fail to appear at court are returned as quickly as possible and that this is done efficiently and in a way that sends a clear message to those who flout the orders of the Court. This commitment has been central to the great improvements already made in this area.
Sampling and analysis of police warrant data has shown that the proposed legislative options to restrict the use of backed for bail warrants in certain circumstances would have a minimal impact upon the use of backed for bail warrants. Only the complete abolition of bail warrants would have a significant impact. We agree with the majority of respondents who argued that this would not be appropriate, both for reasons of maintaining judicial discretion and because a backed for bail warrant can be an appropriate response in a given set of circumstances.
We therefore propose to restrict the use of these warrants through the identification, dissemination and implementation of good practice guidance, rather than by taking a legislative approach.
The dissemination of good practice is widely supported by the majority of respondents to the consultation, whose view was that any local problems could be most effectively resolved in that way. This approach is also validated by recent research, which has highlighted that the majority of criminal justice areas have successfully restricted the use of backed for bail warrants through local protocols and improved administrative practices. We are now engaged fully with criminal justice partners, both centrally and locally, to finalise this good practice guidance and ensure that it is disseminated and implemented successfully.
Good practice guidance documents will be issued during summer 2007, in conjunction with criminal justice partners. Follow-up work will include research to assess the impact of the guidance and targeted action in local areas where a specific need is identified.
Annex A
List of Respondents
Avon and Somerset Criminal Justice Board
Chandra Sekar (Angell Park Chambers)
The City Law School
Council of HM Circuit Judges
Criminal Bar Association
Crown Prosecution Service
Cumbria Criminal Justice Board
Dorset Criminal Justice Board
Essex Criminal Justice Board
Her Majesty's Courts Service
HMCS Cumbria
Hertfordshire Criminal Justice Board
John Clucas (Lancashire Police)
Juliet Rix JP
Justices' Clerks' Society
Kent Criminal Justice Board
Kenton Sargeant (Davies Gore Lomax solicitors)
Lancashire Criminal Justice Board
The Law Society
Legal Services Commission
The Magistrates' Association
National Bench Chairmen's Forum
Neil Corre and David Wolchover, authors of Bail in Criminal Proceedings
Norfolk Criminal Justice Board
Northamptonshire Police
Northumbria Criminal Justice Board
Tony Grant (Surrey Police)
South Yorkshire Criminal Justice Board
Sussex Criminal Justice Board
Wiltshire Criminal Justice Board
West Yorkshire Criminal Justice Board