header-logo header-logo

26 June 2008
Issue: 7327 / Categories: Legal News , Local government , Public , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Consultation launched on bail and murder

Legal news

A government review has ruled out the banning of bail for all murder suspects because such a move could breach human rights laws.

The review was ordered after policeman, Garry Weddell, killed his mother-in-law and then himself while on bail for killing his wife.

The Ministry of Justice consultation paper—Bail and Murder—raise concerns that a total ban on bail for all murder cases might contravene the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires courts to have some discretion to grant bail.

Instead it proposes requiring courts to give greater weight to the potential risks of granting bail to a murder suspect, including the likelihood of them inflicting physical or mental harm.

Justice minister, Jack Straw says: “Bail decisions in murder cases will never be easy; the vital thing is to ensure that the courts strike the right balance between respecting individuals’ right to liberty and protecting the public.”

Views are requested on whether hearings following alleged breaches of bail by defendants charged with murder should be heard in the crown court rather than in a magistrates’ court as at present.

It also considers the role of the Crown Prosecution Service in making representations against the grant of bail once a defendant has been convicted and the relevance of the likely sentence when a court is considering bail. Also discussed are the monitoring of bail conditions, the imposition of conditions that must be met by other agencies before a defendant is released, and the provision of feedback to courts.

Issue: 7327 / Categories: Legal News , Local government , Public , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll