I’ve blogged before about Garry Newlove’s murder not being attributable to a bail decision, and I’ve spoken to Charon to explain why I think the recent media panic about bail, because of that case and the case of Garry Weddell, was groundless. So I’m very glad the transcripts of the key bail hearings in the Weddell case have now been released. In my view they vindicate the judge, and should silence those who’ve been asking for inquiries into the decision to grant bail, a reform of bail law, and so on. I’m also pleased the psychiatrist in the case gave an interview last night on Channel 4 news to explain why he considered Weddell sane, and not an imminent suicide risk.

The CPS’s objection to bail was not that they thought Weddell was likely to kill again. At the key hearing in Ipswich in July 2007, the real issues were whether he’d abscond, interfere with witnesses or harm himself. Of course, but for the fact that Weddell was released on bail, Traute Maxwell would not have been killed six months later. I appreciate that. But those who see in this proof that the decision to release him was wrong, or, worse, that it shows the bail system is seriously flawed and lax, really must face up to the logic of their position.

Do they say everyone accused of murder should always automatically be kept in prison pending trial, regardless of how much or little risk they appear to pose? Presumably yes. Presumably the same principle should apply to those accused of rape. Why not, after all? What about those charged with GBH? Sexual assault? ABH? Assault on police (which was the offence Adam Swellings was bailed for)? And why shouldn’t the same apply to those accused of drug dealing, or using child porn? They may pose a risk, after all. Nor is it a trivial matter if you’re burgled: so presumably those accused of burglary should also have no chance of bail, either.

Perhaps we’ll need those titan prisons after all.

2008-02-01T12:27:00+00:00Tags: , , , , |