Admitted to 10 offenses, but yet still allowed to go on bail in the first place... I thought the point of bail was for people who weren't likely to keep committing crimes??? This is crazy.
Interesting academic case! 'Common sense' might suggest that the defendant (having pleaded guilty) now stands convicted of very serious allegations (multiple offences involving amongst other things, penetration of an under-13). Barring wholly exceptional circumstances (and the reports do not mention any such) he must be expecting a very substantial custodial sentence. 'Common sense' might suggest that allowing him to go abroad could create an obvious risk that he might fail to surrender for sentencing, or that (having nothing further to lose) might commit further offences whilst abroad and beyond UK jurisdiction, and that he ought therefore to be remanded in custody, or at the very least be subject to stringent bail conditions preventing him from fleeing the UK. However, that is not what the Bail Act permits. To withold bail, one of the exceptions to the right to bail contained in the Bail Act must be found by the Court. Clearly sentencing could not take place on the day (pre-sentence reports; possibly psychiatric reports; possible consideration of victim impact and any potential compensation?) He appeared at court in answer to bail, presumably has no previous convictions for absconding, and presumably has committed no further offences whilst on bail. Case precedent does not support the withdrawal of bail in such circumstances, so far as I can recall. The Judge would therefore have to take the view that the mere fact of his conviction would make absconding or further offences more likely. That assumption would then presumably have to apply in every case of this type. That is not what the law says, hence Mr Thompson has been re-admitted to bail. Don't anyone make the mistake of thinking that I am in any way justifying the Judge's decision. I'm simply trying to understand how the decision may have been reached. And DR's assertion above that there will be much further detail that has not been reported is correct. There is always more to it. Interested to hear the further views of my learned friends!
As ever, a good analytical post from you. The complexity of English Law -both Criminal and Civil .is baffling at times to most of us and , as you say, occasionally appears to conflict with common sense and 'natural justice'. However , for all its weaknesses and faults it is still, by and large, the best system we currently have, and maintains a level of independence from Government interference, in spite of efforts to the contrary in recent times, certainly compared to countries like the USA and what many people may think,
I've probably gained this 'knowledge' through watching TV, but I was under the impression that granting bail came with certain conditions and those conditions tended to focus on living and travel arrangements. As in the accused (now convicted) must continue living or begin living at a specific address and must remain within a certain area which is usually their home town but is extended if work requires it.
The basic starting principle is that every defendant is entitled to unconditional bail. The prosecution can make representations that bail should be withheld if one or more of the exceptions to the right to bail are made out. They are to be found in the Bail Act, and typically include where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant would fail to surrender in answer to bail or would commit further offences. The court, if finding the exception(s) made out may remand the defendant in custody. Alternatively, if it believes that the concerns can be addressed by the imposition of conditions it may grant conditional bail. Arrest for breach of bail conditions normally constitutes an extra ground for a remand in custody.
IIRC next year the requirement for a "visa" comes in where they will start checking criminal records - although this might just be for Schengen. I say visa, there is a name for it, but its early and really its similar to the visa waiver scheme that the USA has had for years.
I think you refer to ETIAS (biometric data) applicable to travel entry to EU from outside the EU. CVosts 7 euros for 3 years. However it has been put back again until Nov 2023.
Thanks for the well informed post Instead of clearing up serious anomalies like this it appears former members of the government were more focussed on sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, i.e Patel, Braverman, Javid, Rudd, etc... The Bail Act was passed in 1976, but no ****** has looked at it. A judge cannot overturn statute law.
I see that Major Dan has waded into the controversy on the front page of the Chronicle. The Good Major says he will raise the matter with the CPS and the Attorney General. "I find it very difficult to understand how he was not deemed a serious threat to the public and remanded in custody." If only he'd read my post, above! His gripe should not be with the Court, who simply applied the existing law, but with the wording of the Bail Act itself, which hitherto appears to have stood the test of time!
