By Luke Kelly

This rapid literature review finds evidence of varied bail conditions in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania. The African Charter, which all the states have ratified, supports the right to bail, as do other international instruments. Most of the countries surveyed allow bail, but conditions vary as do practical applications. This review surveys the law on bail, as well as evidence on how the laws are enacted in practice. Legal documents, as well as academic and policy analysis have been used. This includes some analysis of "wider structural socio-political contexts, existing institutions/rules of the game (both formal and informal), associated incentive and interest structures and the particular features of the balance of power between relevant actors and stakeholders. This review highlights some key findings, including in Kenya, there is a right to bail for all offences (serious offences by a court only), but much discretion is granted to the authorities, and research has found that the rules are applied inconsistently and there is a high rate of pre-trial detention. Meanwhile, bail is a right for most in Uganda, but bail for some serious crimes can only be granted by the High Court; however, in practice, it is hard to get bail and there is a high rate of pre-trial detention. In Rwanda, bail may be given for all offences provided conditions are met and the rate of pre-trial detention is relatively low, although there is evidence that some are detained outside of the judicial system and without a trial or the option of bail. Finally, in Tanzania, bail can be granted with certain mandatory restrictions and there is an on-going legal dispute about whether the right to bail extends to those accused of certain serious crimes. Research shows refusal of bail is being used against critics of the Tanzanian government and there is a high rate of pre-trial detention.

Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies, K4D helpdesk service, 2020. 14p.

By Amy Pisani, Sara Rahman, Madeleine Griffiths and Suzanne Poynton

To determine which factors of the Bail Act 2013 (NSW), are influential in first-court bail decisions in NSW Local Courts, and the reasons why courts release adult defendants who have already been refused bail by police. METHOD We descriptively and thematically analysed a dataset combining observations of 252 first court bail hearings in the NSW Local Court between February and May 2023, and administrative data from the BOCSAR Re-offending Database (ROD) and the New South Wales (NSW) Police Force’s Computerised Operational Policing System. We supplemented these data with a thematic analysis of 40 interviews with criminal justice stakeholders involved in adult bail proceedings in NSW Local Courts. RESULTS Of the 252 observations where police had refused bail, 110 defendants (44%) were released on bail by the court, with six released unconditionally, 12% were finalised at first appearance or had their bail dispensed with, and 44% had their bail refused by the court. Similar to prosecutors and police, magistrates were most concerned with a defendant’s criminal history and the nature and seriousness of the offence, and to a lesser extent defendant vulnerabilities and needs, when determining bail. There was also general agreement between police/prosecutors and the courts regarding bail concerns, with both parties most frequently identifying reoffending and endangering the safety of victims/community as their primary concerns. Two main differences between police and court decisions emerged from the analysis. Firstly, while magistrates identified bail concerns in the majority of matters observed, they were often satisfied that these risks could be mitigated by bail conditions. The bail conditions most commonly imposed were accommodation (82%), reporting (60%), non-contact orders (47%), and place restrictions (34%). Secondly, police rarely grant bail to people charged with show cause offences, whereas 55% of defendants charged with a show cause offence, who were refused bail by police, were able to successfully demonstrate to the court why their detention was not justified. Stakeholders reported that this occurred because police prioritise community and victim safety, have limited access to information from defendants and legal representatives, and do not apply discretion when applying the show cause requirement. CONCLUSION Legal factors, such as criminal history and seriousness of offences, are the most influential factors in both the police and courts’ bail decisions. However, magistrates who are legally trained, less subject to time pressures, and can be informed by legal practitioners, are more able to thoroughly assess show cause requirements and the suitability of bail conditions at the first court bail hearing. In the absence of these factors, police are more risk-averse  

Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2024. 42p.

By Ilya Klauzner; Steve Yeong

Background

There are two bail authorities in New South Wales (NSW): the police and the courts. These authorities are tasked with determining whether an accused person should be held on remand prior to the finalisation of legal proceedings. Remand is associated with adverse social, economic, legal and emotional outcomes for the individual and represents a significant financial burden to the state. It is, therefore, crucial for policymakers to understand what factors drive the bail decision-making process. This bulletin seeks to understand the application of the current NSW bail laws (Bail Act 2013 (NSW)). Specifically, it examines the relative importance of defendant (e.g., age, gender and Aboriginality) and case characteristics (e.g., prior offending, the number and nature of the offences to which the defendant is accused) in bail decisions. Consistency of bail decisions across police areas and courts is also considered.

Key findings

Bail determinations in NSW between January 2015 and November 2019 are examined. The findings can be summarised as follows: Legal factors, including the number of concurrent offences, prior offences and prior prison sentences, strongly increase the likelihood of bail refusal by the police and court. Defendants accused of a Show Cause offence, which carries a presumption against bail, are far more likely to be refused bail than other defendants.Some extra-legal factors are also associated with a significant increase in the probability of being bail refused. Adult Aboriginal defendants are more likely to be bail refused by the police than non-Aboriginal defendants, while male defendants and those aged between 35 and 44 years are more likely to be bail refused by both the police and the courts.There is substantial variation in bail decisions across police jurisdictions and magistrates for matters with equivalent case characteristics. Moving between different police jurisdictions or magistrates may have a greater impact on the probability of bail refusal than many legal factors, including prior court appearances and bail breaches.The police and courts are largely influenced by the same factors in their bail decisions. However, there is evidence to suggest that police are imposing a higher risk threshold than the courts. Further, the police are more likely to refuse bail for domestic violence and/or alcohol related offences than the courts.Generally, factors influencing bail refusal are similar for adults and juveniles. However, breaches of bail have a larger influence on the probability of juveniles being refused bail compared with adults. Extra-legal factors (e.g., gender) also seem to be less important in bail decisions involving juveniles.

Conclusion

Legal factors, in particular offence type and prior offending, have the largest impact on both the police and court decision to refuse bail. The influence of certain extra-legal factors, including Aboriginality, in bail determinations and the substantial variation across police jurisdictions and magistrates warrants further research.

(Crime and Justice Bulletin No. 236). Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. 2021. 32p

By Max Travers, Emma Colvin, Isabelle Bartkowiak Théron, Rick Sarre, Andrew Day, Christine Bond

In this paper we seek to review the rapid rise in remand in custody rates in Australia. In particular, and in response, we ask and discuss three specific questions:

1. To what extent do defendants applying for bail have vulnerabilities?

2. To what extent can risk analysis tools that seek to predict breach of bail terms be relied upon?

3. To what extent can the emerging pre-trial services programs in Australia reduce remand in custody populations?

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 610. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2020. 13p.

By Jim Quinn  

Since New York State’s 2019 bail reform went into effect, controversy has swirled around the question of its impact on public safety—as well as its broader success in creating a more just and equitable system. The COVID-19 pandemic (which hit three months after the bail reform’s effective date), the upheaval following the killing of George Floyd, and the subsequent enactment of various police and criminal justice reforms are confounding factors that make assessing the specific effects of the 2019 bail reform particularly complex. This paper attempts to give the public a better sense of the risks of this policy shift and the detrimental effect that the changes have had on public safety. First, I will lay out the content of the bail reform and will measure pertinent impacts on crime and re-offending rates. Then I will review changes made in the 2020 and 2022 amendments. I will look at the push for supervised release and closing Rikers Island and how those initiatives fed into the momentum behind these laws. Finally, I will propose recommendations to improve bail reform’s impact on public safety, which include: 1. Allow judges to set bail, remand, release on recognizance (ROR), or conditions of release for any crime and any defendant. There should be a presumption of release for misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies, which could be rebutted by the defendant’s prior record or other factors that indicate that the defendant is a flight risk. There should be a presumption of bail, remand, or nonmonetary conditions for defendants charged with violent felonies or weapons offenses. This presumption could also be rebutted by evidence of the defendant’s roots in the community, lack of criminal record, and similar factors

New York: The Manhattan Institute, 2022. 29p.

By Chloe Anderson Golub, Melanie Skemer

On any given day, nearly 450,000 people in the United States—still legally innocent—are detained while awaiting the resolution of their criminal charges, many because they could not afford to pay the bail amount set as a condition of their release. In response, jurisdictions across the United States are making changes to their pretrial systems to reduce the number of people who are held in pretrial detention. As part of this effort, many jurisdictions are moving away from money bail as a primary means of encouraging people to return for future court dates. Instead, they are increasingly relying on strategies such as pretrial supervision, which requires released people to meet regularly with supervision staff members, and special conditions, such as electronic monitoring and sobriety monitoring. In theory, the added layer of oversight that these release conditions provide would encourage people to appear for court dates and avoid new arrests. Yet until the last two years, research on the effectiveness of these conditions was either limited (in the case of pretrial supervision) or had faced methodological limitations and yielded mixed findings (in the case of special conditions). A more rigorous understanding of the effectiveness of these release conditions is critical, particularly given their immense burdens and costs to both jurisdictions and people awaiting the resolution of their criminal charges. This brief synthesizes findings from three recent impact studies that assessed the effectiveness of varying intensities and modes of pretrial supervision, as well as electronic monitoring and sobriety monitoring, at ensuring court appearances and preventing new arrests. Among the most rigorous evaluations of pretrial monitoring conducted to date, these studies were set across five geographically diverse U.S. jurisdictions. Findings from each of the three studies are presented in the sections below, followed by a discussion of overarching policy and practice implications. In sum, these analyses suggest that more restrictive levels and modes of pretrial supervision and special conditions do not improve the rates at which clients appear in court or avoid arrest, at least among those assessed as having a low to moderate probability of pretrial noncompliance (that is, failing to appear in court or being rearrested during the pretrial period). Jurisdictions should consider reducing their reliance on these release conditions and instead seek less restrictive requirements to support pretrial compliance among this population. 

New York: MDRC,   2024. 7p.

By  Brett Fischer, Johanna Lacoe and Steven Raphae

When someone is arrested and cannot afford bail or a private lawyer, they stay in jail and have to wait several days before they are assigned a public defender at arraignment. This time in jail imposes legal, social, and economic costs, from a higher chance of conviction to loss of employment or wages. Low-income individuals bear the brunt of these costs because many cannot afford to post bail to secure their own release, nor can they afford to hire a lawyer to negotiate their release. The County of Santa Clara Public Defender’s Office designed a program to address these problems by providing legal counsel to low-income people shortly after their arrest. In early 2020 they piloted the Pre-Arraignment Representation and Review (PARR) program using a rotating schedule that offered PARR services one day per week. This quasi-random implementation enabled the research team to estimate the impact receiving PARR services had on release and case outcomes. Participation in the program decreased jail time and convictions, and increased case dismissals. This policy brief is a condensed version of a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper: The Effect of Pre-Arraignment Legal Representation on Criminal Case Outcomes. Key Findings • Arrested individuals who received PARR services were detained in jail, on average, for 23 fewer days relative to comparable people who did not receive PARR services (6 total days vs. 29 total days). This reduction reflects both reductions in pretrial detention, as well as potential reductions in the probability and length of incarceration imposed at sentencing. • PARR participants were more than twice as likely to have their cases dismissed altogether, thereby avoiding a criminal conviction. Specifically, receiving PARR services reduced the probability that an individual was convicted by about 75% relative to comparable people whom PARR did not serve. These findings underscore how providing faster access to legal representation following an arrest can improve case outcomes for low-income individuals.

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2024. 5p.

By Melanie Skemer, Emily Brennan

The U.S. jail population has tripled over the last 30 years due to surges in the use of pretrial detention and money bail.  On any given day, nearly 450,000 people in the United States are detained while awaiting the resolution of their criminal charges. Many of these individuals, still legally innocent, are in jail because they cannot afford to pay the bail amount set as a condition of their release. Pretrial detention takes a significant toll on the lives of affected individuals, putting them at increased risk of continued involvement with the criminal legal system as well as of losing their jobs, housing, and child custody.

As a result, jurisdictions across the United States are reforming their pretrial systems to reduce the number of people who are held in pretrial detention—that is, who remain in jail while they await the adjudication of their cases. As part of this effort, many jurisdictions are moving away from money bail as a primary means of encouraging people to return for future court dates. Instead, they are increasingly relying on alternatives such as pretrial supervision, which requires released people to meet regularly with supervision staff members while their cases are pending. Pretrial supervision has traditionally required clients to report for in-person meetings, particularly for those assessed as being at relatively high risk of failing to attend a court hearing or of being rearrested. 

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, many pretrial supervision programs shifted in-person meeting requirements to remote check-ins to protect the health of both clients and staff members. For many jurisdictions, this shift highlighted some of the benefits of remote supervision, which include time savings for clients balancing work, school, caregiving, or other responsibilities, and less resource-intensive administration for supervision providers, potentially generating cost savings. At the same time, some members of the pretrial community questioned whether remote supervision was as effective as in-person interaction at meeting clients’ needs and protecting public safety. As the pandemic waned, it remained unclear whether remote supervision was as effective as in-person or hybrid (a mix of in-person and remote) supervision in achieving the main goals of supervision programs: helping clients make their court appearances and avoid new arrests during the pretrial period.

New York: MDRC. 2024, 37pg

By Rafael A. Mangual 

After enacting a sweeping bail reform, New York lawmakers have drawn the ire of constituents who are troubled by the many stories of repeat and serious offenders—some with violent criminal histories—being returned to the street following their arrests. In the state’s biggest city, the public’s growing concerns are buttressed by brow-raising, if preliminary, crime data, amplifying calls for amending or repealing the bail reform. The operative provisions of New York’s bail reform severely limit judicial discretion in pretrial release decisions, increasing the number of pretrial defendants who are being released, often without conditions and without allowing judges to consider the risk that a defendant poses to the public. New York is now the only state that does not allow judges to consider public safety in any pretrial release decisions. This brief begins with an overview of New York’s pre-2020 bail law and the reforms that took effect on January 1. It then highlights the reform’s shortfalls and ends by proposing three changes intended to address the public’s legitimate safety concerns while preserving the spirit of the reform effort and addressing some of the inequities and inefficiencies inherent in a system that is heavily reliant on the use of monetary pretrial release conditions. The proposed changes include: • Empowering judges to assess the public safety risk posed by pretrial defendants, and setting out a process that allows them to detain dangerous or chronic offenders; • Allowing judges to revoke or amend release decisions in response to a pretrial defendant’s rearrest; and • In the intermediate term, setting aside additional funds or diverting existing funds to reduce the time a defendant stands to spend in jail if remanded to pretrial detention.  

New York: Manhattan Institute, 2020. 14p.