Bail MCQs Flashcards
You represent Ivan who appears before Birmingham Magistrates’ Court charged with an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH). It is the first hearing in the case. Ivan is alleged to have assaulted his next door neighbour. He has 2 previous convictions for assault in the last 3 years although they involved different complainants. He also has 2 previous convictions for failing to answer bail.
Ivan is anxious to be granted bail and he asks you how the court will approach the matter. Which of the following is the most accurate explanation?
The court must grant bail unless it is more likely than not that Ivan will fail to surrender, offend on bail or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.
The court must grant bail unless it is sure beyond reasonable doubt that Ivan will fail to surrender, offend on bail or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.
The court must refuse bail unless it is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that Ivan will not fail to surrender, offend on bail or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.
The court must grant bail unless it is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that Ivan will fail to surrender, offend on bail or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.
The court must grant bail unless it is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that Ivan will fail to surrender, offend on bail or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.
This is correct. There are 3 main grounds for objecting to bail in an indictable case. Bail must be granted unless there are substantial grounds for believing he would:
Fail to attend a subsequent hearing (fail to surrender);
Commit further offences on bail; and/or
Interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice (eg witness intimidation or destruction of evidence)
Here, ABH is an indictable offence and the test has been accurately summarised.
You represent Kwaku who has been on bail for several weeks pending his trial in the magistrates’ court for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. His bail is subject to conditions that he remain indoors at 2 Maple Rise, Bristol each night between 8pm and 8am. He was due to attend court next week for his trial.
Kwaku has been arrested for breach of his bail conditions and is to appear in Court this morning in connection with the alleged breach. He was arrested at 7:15pm at an address in Central London, over 100 miles from his address in Bristol. He is anxious to know what the Court’s powers are.
Which of the following statements most accurately describes the position?
Although Kwaku was not in breach of his bail condition at the time he was arrested, the police were entitled to arrest him for an anticipated breach. This entitles the court to review the question of whether he should remain on bail. He is also liable to be prosecuted for an offence of breaching his bail for which he can be sentenced to imprisonment.
Kwaku was not in breach of his bail conditions at the time of his arrest and so the Court has no power to review his bail.
Although Kwaku was not in breach of his bail condition at the time he was arrested, the police were entitled to arrest him for an anticipated breach. This entitles the Court to sentence him to imprisonment today for the offence of breaching his bail.
Although Kwaku was not in breach of his bail condition at the time he was arrested, the police were entitled to arrest him for an anticipated breach. This entitles the court to review the question of whether he should remain on bail.
Although Kwaku was not in breach of his bail condition at the time he was arrested, the police were entitled to arrest him for an anticipated breach. This entitles the court to review the question of whether he should remain on bail.
This is correct. If a constable has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is likely to break any of the conditions of bail or has reasonable grounds for suspecting that that person has broken any of those conditions then there is a power to arrest (S.7(3)(b) Bail Act 1976).
Here, the constable would have reasonable grounds to believe that Kwaku is likely to breach the bail condition because he would be unable to return to his address in Bristol in time to comply with the curfew at 8pm.
If the Court is of the opinion that, due to this, he is likely to breach his conditions in the future then it may review his bail. This means that the court can remand him in custody or release on bail subject to the same or different conditions (S.7(5))
You represent Marc at the initial hearing in the Magistrates’ Court. He faces a charge of burglary of a dwelling. You attend Marc in custody before the hearing and explain that the Prosecution intend to apply for him to be remanded in custody but that you will try to persuade the Magistrates to grant bail.
Marc asks you whether the Prosecution will be able to appeal if the Magistrates decide to grant bail.
Which of the following is the most accurate advice?
The Prosecution will not be entitled to appeal against a grant of bail because the power only arises for offences triable only on indictment.
The Prosecution will be entitled to appeal against a grant of bail because the offence is imprisonable.
The Prosecution will not be entitled to appeal against a grant of bail because the power only arises for offences of murder, manslaughter, rape and other serious sexual offences.
The Prosecution will be entitled to appeal against a grant of bail because the offence is indictable.
This is correct. The power exists for all offences that are punishable by imprisonment. Burglary of a dwelling is punishable by imprisonment.
S.1 Bail Amendment Act 1993 provides that the prosecution may appeal against a decision of the Magistrates’ Court to grant bail if:
The prosecution objected to bail being granted
The offence is imprisonable
The prosecution give oral notice of the intention to appeal at the conclusion of the hearing
The prosecution then confirm notice in writing of the intention to appeal within 2 hours
You represent Pierre who faces a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH). He has pleaded not guilty and is remanded in custody. His trial is to take place in the Magistrates’ Court.
He is anxious to know how long he can be kept in custody prior to his trial. Which of the following statements is the most accurate?
The trial must take place within 56 days of being remanded in custody because that is the custody time limit for all trials in the Magistrates’ Court.
The trial must take place within 56 days of being remanded in custody because that is the custody time limit for all offences triable either-way.
The trial must take place within 182 days of being remanded in custody because that is the custody time limit that applies to offences of burglary of a dwelling.
The trial must take place within 182 days of being remanded in custody because the offence is indictable.
The trial must take place within 56 days of being remanded in custody because that is the custody time limit for all trials in the Magistrates’ Court.
This is correct. The custody time limit (CTL) for all trials in the Magistrates’ Court is 56 days regardless of whether the offence is summary only or either-way.
You are prosecuting in Bristol Magistrates’ Court. You are dealing with the initial hearing of a Defendant charged with murder. He has no previous convictions. The Magistrates ask you to remind them what their powers are in relation to bail.
What of the following is the correct answer?
The Magistrates may not grant bail unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify it.
The Magistrates must grant bail unless they are satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that the Defendant will fail to surrender, offend on bail or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.
The Magistrates have no power to grant bail and they should simply send the case to the Crown Court and remand the Defendant in custody so that the Crown Court Judge can consider whether or not to grant bail at the next hearing.
The Magistrates may not grant bail unless there is no significant risk of the Defendant committing an offence likely to cause physical or mental injury.
The Magistrates have no power to grant bail and they should simply send the case to the Crown Court and remand the Defendant in custody so that the Crown Court Judge can consider whether or not to grant bail at the next hearing.
This is correct. Only a Crown Court Judge is able to grant bail in a case of murder. Where a Defendant is charged with murder and does not have a previous conviction for murder, attempted murder, rape or a serious sexual offence then the Crown Court Judge must not grant bail unless there is no significant risk of the Defendant committing an offence likely to cause physical or mental injury.
An adult man has been charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm upon his girlfriend with whom he has a child. He has pleaded not guilty and the case has been adjourned for trial.
The man has a condition of bail not to contact his girlfriend. The police receive a report from his girlfriend’s mother to say that the man is at his girlfriend’s flat. When the police attend the flat they arrest the man on suspicion of breaching his bail condition.
The man admits visiting his girlfriend at her flat. He explains that his girlfriend telephoned him and asked him to visit because their child was ill. His girlfriend has confirmed that the man’s account is correct.
The police allege that the man has breached his bail condition.
Which of the following statements best represents the position regarding the allegation that the man has breached his bail condition?
A. The man is not in breach of his bail condition because contact was initiated by his girlfriend. He will not face any consequences as a result of his visit to his girlfriend’s flat.
B. The man is not in breach of his bail condition because he had good reason to be in contact with his girlfriend. He will not face any consequences as a result of his visit to his girlfriend’s flat.
C. The man is in breach of his bail condition. He may be charged with an offence of breach of bail condition.
D. The man is in breach of his bail condition. He will be brought before the court for his bail to be reconsidered.
E. The man is in breach of his bail condition. He will be remanded in custody until his case goes to trial.
D - The man is in breach of his bail condition. He will be brought before the court for his bail to be reconsidered.
Robert is charged with murdering his hairdresser. He wants to make a bail application. He has a previous conviction for attempted murder.
Can Robert make a bail application and how likely is it to succeed?
Robert cannot make a bail application as these matters are too serious.
Robert can make a bail application to a Crown Court judge and will be granted bail, subject to satisfying one of the common exceptions to the right to bail.
Robert can make a bail application and the right to bail is unchanged, if the attempted murder conviction was over twenty-five years ago.
Robert can make a bail application to a Crown Court judge but may not be granted bail unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify it.
Robert can make a bail application to a Crown Court judge but may not be granted bail unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify it.
Correct. As Robert has been charged with murder and has a previous conviction for attempted murder, the application must be heard by a Crown Court judge. The court may not grant bail unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify it.
The other answers are incorrect because the:
· seriousness of a murder charge does not prevent Robert from making a bail application;
· right to bail does not apply where a person is charged with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape or attempted rape and has a previous conviction for one or more of these offences;
· exceptions to the right to bail only apply once the defendant enjoys a prima facie right to bail which does not apply here.
Which one of the following defendants does not benefit from the presumption in favour of bail?
Jane does not benefit from the presumption in favour of bail as she has been brought before the court for alleged breach of a community order.
Ben does not benefit from the presumption in favour of bail as he attends his first hearing in custody, charged with burglary.
Henry does not benefit from the presumption in favour of bail as he has pleaded guilty to an offence of affray, and been committed to the Crown Court for sentence.
Curtis does not benefit from the presumption in favour of bail as he has been convicted after trial for common assault, and his case has been adjourned for a pre-sentence report to be prepared.
Henry does not benefit from the presumption in favour of bail as he has pleaded guilty to an offence of affray, and been committed to the Crown Court for sentence.
Correct. Henry does not benefit from the presumption in favour of bail, as a person who has been committed for sentence to the Crown Court is not a person to whom it applies, see s.4 Bail Act 1976. The reason for this is that Henry has already been determined to be guilty and is likely to get a sentence of more than six months in custody, since the he has been committed to the Crown Court for sentence. There is a low risk that Henry will receive a lesser sentence than the time he will serve in custody wating for the case to be moved to the Crown Court.
The other options were incorrect because:
· Ben benefits from the presumption in favour of bail even though he attends his first hearing in custody;
· Jane benefits from the presumption in favour of bail, even though she has allegedly breached a community order;
· Curtis benefits from the presumption in favour of bail. The right to bail still applies on conviction whilst a defendant awaits sentencing, although the concerns about a defendant absconding may be more serious following a conviction
Abrahim (aged 21) is charged with possession of cocaine with intent to supply. He has been living in student accommodation and allegedly dealing drugs to his student friends from his room. He has allegedly been dealing drugs at all hours of the day and night. There is no evidence he has dealt drugs anywhere else other than the student house. Two other students, Amanda and Kalib, whom also live in the house will be giving evidence to assist the Prosecution. A bail application is being heard in a magistrates’ court after the matter has been listed for summary trial. The Prosecution object to bail citing substantial grounds for believing if granted bail he would commit further offences and interfere with witnesses (namely, Amanda and Kalib). You make a bail application.
What are the best bail conditions to propose in the circumstances?
Reporting to a police station once a week and residence at a different address
A curfew from 9pm – 8am and residence at a different address
A curfew 9pm-8am and not to contact Amanda or Kalib
Residence at a different address, not to go within 200m of the student accommodation and not to contact Amanda or Kalib.
Residence at a different address, not to go within 200m of the student accommodation and not to contact Amanda or Kalib.
The court can impose ‘such conditions as appear necessary’. This would keep Abrahim away from the prosecution witnesses and away from the location where he allegedly sells drugs thus allaying concerns about committing further offences and interfering with witnesses.
The other options were not the best answer because:
· a curfew would be less effective on these facts as Abrahim is not just allegedly offending in the evening; and
· reporting to a police station is more effective for failure to surrender objections.
Malcolm is awaiting trial for possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply, arising from his alleged drug dealing at a nightclub. He is of limited means and has been homeless in the past. He currently lives with his partner. He has a previous conviction for possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply and has failed to surrender to custody in the past. Despite the prosecution’s objections, Malcolm is granted bail by the magistrates.
How can the prosecution appeal the bail ruling and when will the appeal be heard?
The prosecution may appeal the bail ruling if they follow the procedure on oral and written notice. The appeal must be heard by the Crown Court within two working days of the date of the decision of the magistrates’ court.
The prosecution may appeal the bail ruling if they follow the procedure on written notice. The appeal must be heard by the Crown Court within two working days of the date of the decision of the magistrates’ court.
The prosecution may appeal the bail ruling if they follow the procedure on oral notice and written notice. The appeal may then be heard by any tribunal afterwards.
The prosecution may appeal the bail ruling if they follow the procedure on written notice. The appeal must be heard by the Crown Court within 56 hours of the decision of the magistrates’ court.
The prosecution may appeal the bail ruling if they follow the procedure on oral and written notice. The appeal must be heard by the Crown Court within two working days of the date of the decision of the magistrates’ court.
Correct. The prosecution may appeal the bail ruling as long as they indicated orally the intention to appeal at the hearing when bail was granted and confirmed this in writing, serving the court and the accused within two hours of the hearing.
The other answers may sound plausible, but they are not the best answer as the:
· strict procedure requires oral and written notice;
· appeal must be heard by the Crown Court within two working days of the date of the decision of the magistrates’ court, rather than 56 hours;
· appeal must be heard by the Crown Court, rather than any tribunal.
Roberta (aged 26) is charged with burgling the home address of her previous foster carer. She has 2 previous convictions for burglary (2 and 3 years ago respectively), a conviction for fraudulently claiming housing benefit (2 years ago), and a number of convictions for absconding. She was taken into foster care at the age of 14 and has lived an itinerant lifestyle all her adult life. She is unemployed, and is currently living on a friend’s sofa.
At the first hearing, the magistrates’ court allocated the burglary to the Crown Court for trial. Her solicitor made an application for bail, which was refused. She now wishes to apply to the Crown Court for bail. Assume that the correct procedure has been complied with.
Which of the following is a relevant factor in deciding whether the grounds for objection to bail are made out?
The court should have regard to whether it has substantial grounds for believing that Roberta would commit further offences if released on bail.
The court should have regard to whether it is satisfied that Roberta should be kept in custody for her own protection.
The court should have regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence and probable method of dealing with Roberta for it.
The court should have regard to whether it has substantial grounds for believing that she would fail to surrender to custody if released on bail.
The court should have regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence and probable method of dealing with Roberta for it.
Correct. This is a factor in deciding whether the grounds for objection are made out, not an objection per se.
The other options were incorrect because they were not relevant factors but misstated grounds for withholding bail for Roberta, charged with an indictable offence:
· The court should have regard to whether it has substantial grounds for believing that Roberta would commit further offences if released on bail;
· The court should have regard to whether it has substantial grounds for believing that she would fail to surrender to custody if released on bail; and
· The court should have regard to whether it is satisfied that Roberta should be kept in custody for her own protection.
