AC-2025-LON-003228 - [2025] EWHC 2569 (Admin)

Reference has been made to the Bail Act, for a number of purposes. There is the statutory duty to give reasons for “withholding” bail: s.5(3). There is the presumption in favour of bail (s.4), which carries forward where a defendant’s case is adjourned for enquiries or reports: s.4(4) and (6). There is the statutory duty to consider bail at each hearing (Sch 1 Part IIA §1), which Mr Kherbane maintains is a duty applicable irrespective of whether the starting point is that a person is or is not on bail. Ms Millar disagrees, and points to the opening words of §1 which refer to where bail has first been refused. Then there is the familiar statutory test (Sch 1 Part 1 §2) framing the question whether a court is “satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing” that the defendant if released on conditional bail would “fail to surrender to custody” or “commit an offence on bail”. That provision has also attracted disagreement. Mr Kherbane says it applies in all cases whether the presumption in favour of bail applies. Ms Millar submits by reference to s.4 that it is the destination only where the presumption applies. Finally, I am aware of the statutorily listed factors (Sch 1 Part 1 §9). In the end, I am satisfied that nothing turns on the rights and wrongs of the points that have been contested between Counsel today as to aspects of the statutory scheme (ie. Sch 1 Part IIA §1 and Sch 1 Part 1 §2).