One is that of Garry Weddell, a former police inspector awaiting trial on the charge of the murder of his wife Sandra, who was then himself found dead, allegedly having killed his mother-in-law before taking his own life.

The second is that of Mr Garry Newlove, from Warrington, Cheshire, who died two days after - as Chester Crown Court was told - he had been "kicked like a football" when he confronted a gang near his house in August last year. Three young men, Adam Swellings, 19, Stephen Sorton, 17, and Jordan Cuncliffe 16 were convicted of his murder earlier this month.

Mr Weddell was remanded on bail whilst awaiting his murder trial. Mr Swellings was remanded in custody once he had been arrested on the murder change, but at the time that he committed the murder he had been on bail on other charges, breaking a condition of bail that he did not go near Warrington, where the offence was committed.

Some have, for reasons I fully understand, then said that these two cases suggest that the law on granting bail should be changed, and made more difficult. The issue is now on my desk

I cannot comment on the individual bail decisions in these two cases, though in the Weddell case transcripts of the bail hearings will soon be made public, and indicate the thoroughness with which the judge approached the issue And everyone seeks to learn lessons.

So what do I do?

The first thing is to remind myself, and everyone else, of an absolutely fundamental principle of our legal system - and indeed of any other worthy of that name. This is that someone charged with an offence - however heinous - is considered to be not guilty of that crime unless and until the opposite is proved, beyond reasonable doubt, at his or her trial. And, until they are convicted according to law, they have a right to liberty. This is not an absolute right. Far from it. Public safety and the interests of justice mean that some people must be kept in prison awaiting trial. At any one time about 8,000 of our 80,000 prison population are inside "on remand".

They will have been put there after a hearing (or a number) where typically the prosecution and the police will have argued for remand in jail, the defence for bail. The judge or the magistrates then have to decide. They do so on the basis of some common-sense tests - for example will the defendant fail to turn up in court, will they commit another offence, interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. The hard part for the judiciary is then testing the likely future conduct of the defendants on the best available evidence at the time. The judges and magistrates do so with great care. Sometimes they remand the defendant in custody; sometimes they grant bail, using all kinds of conditions that can be imposed, from tagging, curfews and area bans, to the taking of sureties. Sadly, sometimes defendants do break their conditions of bail, on occasions with tragic results.

That is terrible for the victims and their families; and no words of comfort or explanation will expunge their loss and suffering.

There is already legislation, on the granting of bail in homicide and rape cases where the defendant already has a conviction for a similar crime. What I am now doing is to look at whether this should be extended to cover murder charges where this is the first such offence. I hope to make decisions fairly quickly on this. But I am clear that the court must retain discretion to cover exceptional situations.

Take the case of another man charged with the murder - also of his wife. Most would say, on those facts, remand him in jail. But in this case (a real one) the man was aged 100. His defence was based on his own mental condition, developed watching his wife whom he loved dearly and was in the very painful terminal stages of a dreadful illness. He was convicted of manslaughter and given two years' probation. The Judge described the killing as "an act of love".

Few would, I think, argue against giving this man bail whilst he awaited trial as he was highly unlikely to re-offend or abscond; and, as it turned out, he was found not guilty of murder. These markedly differing cases within the same very serious type of crime are just one illustration of the inherent daily challenges faced by courts, and which I have to take into account in deciding what if any changes I should now propose.

My guiding principle in this as in all my duties is the safety of the public. My aim is that custody should be targeted as precisely as possible upon those cases where there is a risk of harm to the public. I will not be slow to come forward with further changes to the law if they are needed to secure that aim.

Comment (0)