I’m a bit disheartened by this story. I entirely agree that bail conditions should be properly enforced: the fact that Adam Swellings felt able to return to Warrington immediately after being bailed on condition he shouldn’t return there shows that offenders hold the conditional bail system in contempt – something I knew years ago when my criminal clients used to talk as though bail conditions didn’t exist.
But the Garry Newlove murder is not a story about the availability of bail. Two other people murdered him; they weren’t on bail at all. And unless you think people accused of assault should be locked up till death, Swellings would have been on the streets somewhere, some time. He might have attacked someone in Crewe, where he lived.
The truth is, Garry Newlove’s murder is about a culture of drugs, drunkenness and menace among young men; and about inadequate policing. I hope this bail sidelight doesn’t blind people to that. I fear that politicians and the police will be happy if it does.
The media also have alot to answer for – “murder whilst on bail” makes for good headlines. The media who report these stories with the slant which they do fail to acknowledge the basic principle which applies in our criminal justice system that there is, apart from in the context of particular offences, a presumption in favour of granting bail. This is no doubt a presumption which the general public would, on reflection, wish to see upheld, especially in view of the widespread curtailment of civil liberties which would result were such a presumption to be abandoned. As you say, the problem is social and cultural, not legal… AD 🙂
Let’s disect this slightly further.
The news report is more to do with sales of newsprint than anything else.
The murder is about other matters – more to do with ‘society’. I regret the passing of a sense of personal responsibility, and that is attributable – in part – to the ‘victim’ culture.
I don’t think the call for longer sentences does anything much, but I do think that from the earliest years children must be taught that they are personally responsible for their actions and the effects. It starts with parents – the adults.
Those who perpetrated this act are almost certainly damaged goods and have been so for many years. Time and again I see successive generations of the same families in trouble with the law.
I have to agree that it wasnt about bail, but for different reasons…
The fact was that he wasnt afraid about being picked up on bail, because he felt that the chance of
detection and return to court was minimal – he was not afraid of being caught breaking his bail because the police presence on the streets, intervening and preventing crime, is barely existent.
had he thought “its not worth breaking bail because I know I’ll be picked up by the rozzers in no time at all” then he would not have broken it
Mmmmm
Labrat is correct as far as it goes, the Police are overburdened and unlikely to catch bailbreakers.
However, if the Courts either (a) prevented the offender from walking freely to wherever the naughty lad has been told not to go or (b) banged the criminal up when he breached bail and was brought back before the Court – perhaps the word might get around?
Where there is no penalty, there is no fear of consequence.