NCJ Number
232088
Journal
Howard Journal of Criminal Justice Volume: 49 Issue: 4 Dated: September 2010 Pages: 349-360
Date Published
September 2010
Length
12 pages
Annotation
This study examined how English magistrates interpret the phrase 'substantial grounds'.
Abstract
The main goal of this study was to capture how decisionmakers interpret the phrase 'substantial grounds' for denying bail stated in the Bail Act 1976. It was found that magistrates who remanded the defendant into custody judged the mean risks of the defendant absconding, offending on bail, and obstructing justice to be significantly greater than did those who bailed the defendant. Thus, the mean interpretation of 'substantial grounds' across magistrates was from 46 percent to 51 percent (on a 0 percent to 100 percent scale); however, there was great variability across magistrates. The implications of the present findings for encouraging consistent, transparent, and justifiable interpretations of bail law are discussed. Figure, table, notes, and references (Published Abstract)