The Crown Prosecution Service has not done a discrete assessment of the effectiveness of the system for presenting objections to bail. Police concerns about granting bail to the accused are reviewed objectively by prosecutors against the Bail Act criteria. Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate periodically reviews CPS systems generally and has not identified any inherent weaknesses in performance.
I am surprised at the Solicitor-General’s response as in recent weeks we have seen an increasing number of dangerous people released on bail and going on to commit even more horrendous crimes. The police are sick to the back teeth of arresting the same people week after week who abuse the bail system and breach bail conditions, yet nothing ever seems to happen. What is the Solicitor-General going to do to deal with this abuse of bail and end her complacent approach, which we also saw in her earlier answer?
There is nothing complacent about the Crown Prosecution Service or my approach to the issue of bail. In all the cases that have hit the headlines—I am not going to talk about the defendant called Swellings, because he has not yet been sentenced—the CPS opposed bail robustly, repeatedly and at length. The law in the UK is that a person is not guilty on the basis of an accusation, but only when they have been proven guilty before a jury. Until that time, they are entitled to bail. When public safety or justice requires it, of course the CPS resolutely objects to bail. We also have an independent judiciary in this country and we are very proud and pleased that we do, and the judiciary takes the decision as between public protection and the right of an unconvicted defendant. It cannot predict the future and cannot read minds, but it makes good rational judgments on a sensible basis. That is what has happened in all those cases.
Let me make the following very clear to the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor —and the Ministry of Justice—has said that when the dust on those cases has settled, as it were, and if any issues are raised that require changes in the law, he will look to see whether they are necessary. I have no hesitation in saying, however, that the CPS tries very hard—
Order. I must stop the Solicitor-General.
But the points raised by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) need to be examined. Should the Solicitor-General not meet the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor to establish what further steps could be taken to analyse the results of the granting of bail? I think that is all that the House is asking. Let us look at what has happened, let us look at the impact on resources, and let us see whether any lessons can be learned from the procedure.
As ever, my right hon. Friend has made a sensible suggestion. I meet the other two Justice Ministers frequently, as does my noble Friend the Attorney-General. As I have said, the Lord Chancellor is taking the lead on the issue, and I have no doubt that he will consult both the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary on any proposals that he concludes, having consulted us, are necessary following the changes that have taken place. However, as I have also said, the system is as it is.
I hope the Solicitor-General agrees that whatever changes are made, she should return to her original statement that the right to bail follows logically and inevitably from the presumption of innocence: the rule that we are all innocent until proven guilty. I hope she can assure us that the Government have no intention of following the route followed even in progressive countries such as Canada, where two thirds of prisoners are on remand, towards almost automatic remand for those accused of criminal offences.
I think I have made the position very clear. Indeed, I have been criticised for making it extremely clear. The position is, as the hon. Gentleman says, that a person is presumed innocent until a jury decides that he is guilty, or he himself pleads guilty. At each stage, people are entitled to bail unless the public need to be protected from them, or there is a danger that they will interfere with witnesses or not turn up in court. Those criteria have served us well for 30 years. The cases that have been mentioned have caused us to look at the issue again, but that is all that we are doing—looking at it again.
As the Solicitor-General will know, some of the cases that have caused public concern relate to the grant of bail by the Crown court. Others appear to relate to the grant of bail by the magistrates court. The power exists, and has existed for some time, for the Crown Prosecution Service to appeal to the Crown court against a mistaken grant of bail. Can the Solicitor-General assure us that the position will be investigated to establish whether there are cases in which, far from robustly opposing the grant of bail initially, the Crown Prosecution Service ought to consider appealing from the magistrates courts if bail has been granted?
Yes. As the hon. Gentleman says, none of the cases that have given rise to concern are in the category of magistrates court cases on which an appeal could have been made. In all those cases, the decisions were made by senior and experienced judges in the Crown court. I am not aware of any anxiety about a failure to appeal against grant of bail in the magistrates court if the Crown Prosecution Service is apprised of the need to do so, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I have no doubt that it can be addressed as part of the overall issue.