The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (December 2010)

Traditionally, bail is some form of property deposited or pledged to a court to persuade it to release a suspect from jail, on the understanding that the suspect will return for trial or forfeit the bail (and possibly be brought up on charges of the crime of failure to appear). In some cases bail money may be returned at the end of the trial, if all court appearances are made, regardless of whether the person is found guilty or not guilty of the crime accused. If a bondsman is used and a surety bond has been obtained, the fee for that bond is the fee for the insurance policy purchased and is not refundable.

In some countries granting bail is common. Even in such countries, however, bail may not be offered by some courts under some circumstances; for instance, if the accused is considered likely not to appear for trial regardless of bail. Legislatures may also set out certain crimes to be not bailable, such as capital crimes.

Canada[link]

Persons charged with a criminal offence in Canada have a constitutional right to reasonable bail unless there is some compelling reason to deny it. These reasons can be related to the accused's likelihood to skip bail, or to public danger resulting from the accused being at large. In stark contrast to the United States and many other jurisdictions granting a constitutional right to bail, in Canada the accused may even be denied bail because the public confidence in the administration of justice may be disturbed by letting the individual, still legally innocent, go free pending the completion of the trial or passing of sentence (Criminal Code, s. 515 (10)(c)). Sureties and deposits can be imposed, but are optional.

England and Wales[link]

History[link]

Preceptors of Roman emperors, charged with upholding laws or institutions were called Bajulus (or bearers). Bajulus later evolved in Italy to mean Protector.

In medieval England, the sheriffs originally possessed the sovereign authority to release or hold suspected criminals. Some sheriffs would exploit the bail for their own gain. The Statute of Westminster (1275) limited the discretion of sheriffs with respect to the bail. Although sheriffs still had the authority to fix the amount of bail required, the statute stipulates which crimes are bailable and which are not.

In the early 17th century, King Charles I ordered noblemen to issue him loans. Those who refused were imprisoned. Five of the prisoners filed a habeas corpus petition arguing that they should not be held indefinitely without trial or bail. In the Petition of Right (1628) Parliament argued that the King had flouted Magna Carta by imprisoning people without just cause.

The Habeas Corpus Act 1679 states, "A Magistrate shall discharge prisoners from their Imprisonment taking their Recognizance, with one or more Surety or Sureties, in any Sum according to the Magistrate's discretion, unless it shall appear that the Party is committed for such Matter or offences for which by law the Prisoner is not bailable." The English Bill of Rights (1689) states that "excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases, to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects. Excessive bail ought not to be required." This was a precursor of the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Forms[link]

In the UK there are three types of bail that can be given:^[1]

• Police bail where a suspect is released without being charged but must return to the police station at a given time.
• Police to court where having been charged a suspect is given bail but must attend his first court hearing at the date and Court given
• Court bail where having already been in court a suspect is granted bail pending further investigation or while the case continues

By police before charge[link]

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the police have power to release a person, who has not been charged, on bail. This is deemed to be a release on bail in accordance with sections 3, 3A, 5 and 5A of the Bail Act 1976.^[2]

By police after charge[link]

After a person has been charged, he must ordinarily be released, on bail or without bail.^[3] Unless the accused has a previous conviction (or equivalents in cases of insanity) for certain specified homicide or sexual offences,^[4] the accused must be released either on bail or without bail unless:^[3]

(a) If the person arrested is not an arrested juvenile

(i) His name or address cannot be ascertained or the custody officer has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name or address furnished by him as his name or address is his real name or address;

(ii) The custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the person arrested will fail to appear in court to answer to bail;

(iii) In the case of a person arrested for an imprisonable offence, the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the detention of the person arrested is necessary to prevent him from committing an offence;

(iiia) In the case of a person who has attained the age of 18, the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the detention of the person is necessary to enable a sample to be taken from him under section 63B below;

(iv) In the case of a person arrested for an offence that is not an imprisonable offence, the custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the detention of the person arrested is necessary to prevent him from causing physical injury to any other person or from causing loss of or damage to property;

(v) The custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the detention of the person arrested is necessary to prevent him from interfering with the administration of justice or with the investigation of offences or of a particular offence;

(vi) The custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the detention of the person arrested is necessary for his own protection;

(b) If he is an arrested juvenile

(i) Any of the requirements of paragraph (a) above is satisfied;

(ii) The custody officer has reasonable grounds for believing that he ought to be detained in his own interests;

If he is granted bail it will be bail to appear at a Magistrates' Court at the next available sitting.^[2]

By a court[link]

Rights[link]

Under current law, a defendant has an absolute right to bail if the custody time limits have expired and otherwise ordinarily a right to bail unless there is sufficient reason not to grant it,^[5]

Any person accused of committing a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Therefore a person charged with a crime should not be denied freedom unless there is a good reason.

The main reasons for refusing bail are that the defendant is accused of an imprisonable offence and there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant would:

1. Abscond
2. Commit further offences while on bail
3. Interfere with witnesses^[5]

The court should take into account the:

1. Nature and seriousness of the offence or default (and the probable method of dealing with the defendant for it)
2. Character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the defendant,
3. Defendant's bail record, and
4. Strength of the evidence^[5]

The court may also refuse bail:

• For the defendant's own protection
• Where the defendant is already serving a custodial sentence for another offence
• Where the court is satisfied that it has not been practicable to obtain sufficient information
• Where the defendant has already absconded in the present proceedings
• Where the defendant has been convicted but the court is awaiting a pre-sentence report, other report or inquiry and it would be impracticable to complete the inquiries or make the report without keeping the defendant in custody
• Where the defendant is charged with a non-imprisonable offence, has already been released on bail for the offence with which he is now accused, and has been arrested for absconding or breaching bail^[5]

Where the accused has previous convictions for certain homicide or sexual offences, the burden of proof is on the defendant to rebut a presumption against bail.^[6]

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 amended the Bail Act 1976 restricting the right to bail for adults who tested positive for a Class A drug and refused to be assessed or refused to participate in recommended treatment.^[7]

Where a defendant is charged with treason, bail may only be granted by a High Court judge or by the Secretary of State.^[8] Section 115 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 prohibits magistrates' courts from granting bail in murder cases.^[9]

Conditions[link]

Conditions may be applied to the grant of bail, such as living at a particular address or having someone act as surety, if the court considers that this is necessary:

• To prevent the defendant absconding
• To prevent the defendant committing further offences while on bail
• To prevent the defendant interfering with witnesses
• For the defendant's own protection (or if he is a child or young person, for his own welfare or in his own interests)^[5]

Failure to comply[link]

Failing to attend court on time as required is an offence, for which the maximum sentence in a magistrates' court is three months' imprisonment, or twelve months in the Crown Court.^[10] (Sentences are usually much shorter than the maximum, but are often custody.) In addition to imposing punishment for this offence, courts will often revoke bail as they may not trust the defendant again. The amended Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction states (at paragraph 1.13.5) that "the sentence for the breach of bail should usually be custodial and consecutive to any other custodial sentence".^[11]

Failing to comply with bail conditions is not an offence, but may lead to the defendant being arrested and brought back to court, where they will be remanded into custody unless the court is satisfied that they will comply with their conditions in future.

Scotland[link]

Under Scots law, no deposit or pledge of property is asked for; bail is only granted where the court is satisfied the accused will turn up for trial.

United States[link]

In pre-independence America, bail law was based on English law. Some of the colonies simply guaranteed their subjects the protections of that law. In 1776, after the Declaration of Independence, those that had not already done so enacted their own versions of bail law.

Section 9 of Virginia's 1776 Constitution states "excessive bail ought not to be required..." In 1785, the following was added, "Those shall be let to bail who are apprehended for any crime not punishable in life or limb...But if a crime be punishable by life or limb, or if it be manslaughter and there be good cause to believe the party guilty thereof, he shall not be admitted to bail." Section 29 of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 states that "Excessive bail shall not be exacted for bailable offences: And all fines shall be moderate."

The prohibition against excessive bail in the Eighth Amendment is derived from the Virginia Constitution, on which Samuel Livermore commented, "The clause seems to have no meaning to it, I do not think it necessary. What is meant by the term excessive bail...?" The Supreme Court has never decided whether the constitutional prohibition on excessive bail applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.^[12]

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, like the English Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, requires that a suspect must "be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" and thus enabling a suspect to demand bail if accused of a bailable offense.

Judiciary Act of 1789[link]

In 1789, the same year that the United States Bill of Rights was introduced, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789. This specified which types of crimes were bailable and set bounds on a judge's discretion in setting bail. The Act states that all non-capital crimes are bailable and that in capital cases the decision to detain a suspect, prior to trial, was to be left to the judge.

The Judiciary Act states, "Upon all arrests in criminal cases, bail shall be admitted, except where punishment may be by death, in which cases it shall not be admitted but by the supreme or a circuit court, or by a justice of the supreme court, or a judge of a district court, who shall exercise their discretion therein."

Bail Reform Act of 1966[link]

In 1966, Congress enacted the Bail Reform Act of 1966, which states that a non-capital defendant is to be released, pending trial, on his personal recognizance or on personal bond, unless the judicial officer determines that such incentives will not adequately assure his appearance at trial. In that case, the judge must select an alternative from a list of conditions, such as restrictions on travel. Individuals charged with a capital crime, or who have been convicted and are awaiting sentencing or appeal, are to be released unless the judicial officer has reason to believe that no conditions will reasonably assure that the person will not flee or pose a danger. In non-capital cases, the Act does not permit a judge to consider a suspect's danger to the community, only in capital cases or after conviction is the judge authorized to do so.

The 1966 Act was particularly criticized within the District of Columbia,^{[by whom?]} where all crimes formerly fell under Federal bail law. In a number of instances, persons accused of violent crimes committed additional crimes when released on their personal recognizance. These individuals were often released yet again.^{[citation needed]}

The Judicial Council committee recommended that, even in non-capital cases, a person's dangerousness should be considered in determining conditions for release. The District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970 allowed judges to consider dangerousness and risk of flight when setting bail in noncapital cases.

Current federal law[link]

In 1984 Congress replaced the Bail Reform Act of 1966 with new bail law, codified at United States Code, Title 18, Sections 3141-3150. The main innovation of the new law is that it allows pre-trial detention of individuals based upon their danger to the community; under prior law and traditional bail statutes in the U.S., pre-trial detention was to be based solely upon the risk of flight.

18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) provides that only persons who fit into certain categories are subject to detention without bail: persons charged with a crime of violence, an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death, certain drug offenses for which the maximum offense is greater than 10 years, repeat felony offenders, or if the defendant poses a serious risk of flight, obstruction of justice, or witness tampering. There is a special hearing held to determine whether the defendant fits within these categories; anyone not within them must be admitted to bail.

The Supreme Court upheld the 1984 Act's provision providing for pretrial detention based on community-danger in United States v. Salerno.

State laws[link]

Bail laws vary somewhat from state to state, as is typical of U.S. jurisprudence. Generally, a person charged with a non-capital crime is presumptively entitled to be granted bail. Recently, some states have enacted statutes modelled on federal law that permit pretrial detention of persons charged with serious violent offenses, if it can be demonstrated that the defendant is a flight risk or a danger to the community.

Some states have very strict guidelines for judges to follow; these are usually provided in the form of a published bail schedule.^[13] These schedules list every single crime defined by state law and prescribe a presumptive dollar value of bail for each one. Judges who wish to depart from the schedule must state specific reasons on the record for doing so. Some states go so far as to require certain forfeitures, bail, and fines for certain crimes.^[14]

In Texas, bail is automatically granted after conviction if an appeal is lodged, but only if the sentence is fifteen years imprisonment or less. In Tennessee, all offenses are bailable, but bail may be denied to those accused of capital crimes.^[15]

Forms[link]

In the United States there are several forms of bail used, these vary from jurisdiction, but the common forms of bail include:

1. Recognizance - when an accused is released on recognizance, he or she promises to the court to attend all required judicial proceedings and will not engage in illegal activity or other prohibited conduct as set by the court. Typically a monetary amount is set by the court, but is not paid by the defendant unless the court orders it forfeited. This is called an unsecured appearance bond or release on one's own recognizance.^[16]
2. Citation Release also known as Cite Out - This procedure involves the issuance of a citation by the arresting officer to the arrestee, informing the arrestee that he or she must appear at an appointed court date. Cite Outs usually occur immediately after an individual is arrested and no financial security is taken.^[16]
3. Surety Bond - by a surety bond, a third party agrees to be responsible for the debt or obligation of the defendant. In many jurisdictions this service is provided commercially by a bail bondsman, where the agent will receive 10% of the bail amount up front and will keep that amount regardless of whether the defendant appears in court. The court in many jurisdictions, especially jurisdictions that prohibit bail bondsmen, may demand a certain amount of the total bail (typically 10%) be given to the court, which, unlike with bail bondsmen, is returned if the defendant does not violate the conditions of bail. This is also known as surety on the bond. The bail agent guarantees to the court that they will pay the forfeited bond if a defendant fails to appear for their scheduled court appearances, so the third party must have adequate assets to satisfy the face value of the bond. In turn, the Bond Agency charges a premium for this service and usually requires collateral from a guarantor. The bail agent then posts a bond for the amount of the bail, to guarantee the arrestee's return to court.^[16]
4. Property Bond - the accused or a person acting on his behalf pledges real property having a value at least equal to the amount of the bail. If the principal fails to appear for trial the state can levy or institute foreclosure proceedings against the property to recover the bail. Used in rare cases and in certain jurisdictions. Often, the equity of the property must be twice the amount of the bail set.^[16]
5. Immigration Bond - used when the defendant that been arrested is an illegal alien. This is a federal bond and not a state bond. The defendant deals directly with either the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the Bureau of Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE). The typical cost associated with this specialty bond is often fifteen to twenty percent of the original bond amount.^[17]
6. Cash - typically "cash-only," where the only form of bail that the Court will accept is cash. Court-ordered cash bonds require the total amount of bail to be posted in cash. The court holds this money until the case is concluded. Cash bonds are typically ordered by the Court for the following reasons: when the Court believes the defendant is a flight risk, when the Court issues a warrant for unpaid fines, and when a defendant has failed to appear for a prior hearing. Cash bonds provide a powerful incentive for defendants to appear for their hearings. If the defendant does not appear as instructed, the cash bond is forfeited and a bench warrant is issued. If the defendant shows up for their scheduled court appearances, the cash is returned to the person who posted the bond. Anyone including the defendant can post a cash bond. If the defendant posts his own bond, the Court will deduct fines and costs from the bond before returning any balance.^[18]
7. Combinations - courts often allow defendants to post cash bail or surety bond, and then impose further conditions, as mentioned below, to protect the community or ensure attendance.

• Conditions of release - many varied non-monetary conditions and restrictions on liberty can be imposed by a court to ensure that a person released into the community will appear in court and not commit any more crimes. Common examples include: mandatory calls to the police, surrendering passports, home detention, electronic monitoring, drug testing, alcohol counseling, surrendering firearms.
• Protective order also called an 'order of protection'- one very common feature of any conditional release, whether on bail, bond or condition, is a court order requiring the defendant to refrain from criminal activity against the alleged crime victim, or stay away from and have no contact with the alleged crime victim. The former is a limited order, the latter a full order. Violation of the order can subject the defendant to automatic forfeiture of bail and further fine or imprisonment.

Controversy[link]

A series of reports by National Public Radio in January 2010 criticized practices in many jurisdictions, which limit funding for pre-trial release programs and result in many poor defendants being held in jail because they cannot afford bail. The series reports that because of the cost differential between pre-trial release (using house arrest, ankle monitor, periodic check-ins, or without monitoring) and detention in jail, this results in billions of dollars of spending and jail overcrowding, which does not significantly increase the chances of a defendant appearing for trial. It also attributed the constriction of resources for what supporters feel are cost-effective pre-trial release programs to lobbyists for bail bondsmen. The series also reported that bondsmen benefit from laws or practices that do not require them to pay the government a substantial fraction of the actual bail forfeited when defendants fail to show, creating a lack of incentive for bondsmen to compel their customers to appear in court. The series also documented cases where the inability to make bail pressured detainees to plead guilty, and had a negative impact on their economic circumstances, compared with those detainees who could afford bail.^[19]

There has been a response to the argument that poor defendants cannot get out of jail on bail because they cannot afford it. In the state of New Jersey, like many states throughout the country, a defendant can secure a bail bond by agreeing to pay the fee, which is normally ten percent of the bond amount over time. Throughout the industry this is commonly referred to as a payment plan. In theory, this may seem like a good idea; however, if a defendant fails to make a payment, the bail bond company does not have the right to revoke the bail that was set by a judge. This allows a defendant to be released on bail without ever paying the premium owed to the bail bond company.

See also[link]

• Bail bondsman
• Bounty hunters
• Mainprise

References[link]

Mark Verdon Boucher (born 3 December 1976) is a South African cricketer, who holds the record for the most Test dismissals by a wicket-keeper. He was educated at Selborne College and has represented Border, Africa XI, ICC World XI, Royal Challengers Bangalore and Kolkata Knight Riders of the Indian Premier League, and South Africa. He has been a regular feature of the South African side since the 1997/1998 tour to Australia.

Notable achievements[link]

Boucher is currently, and has been so ever since he replaced Dave Richardson, South Africa's first-choice wicketkeeper, and is widely regarded as one of, if not the, greatest wicketkeepers South Africa has ever had.^{[citation needed]} He holds the record for the most dismissals in Test cricket. He got the record originally when he overtook the former Australian wicketkeeper Ian Healy in the first test of the Bank Alfalah Test Series versus Pakistan in Karachi on 3 October 2007 when he stumped Umar Gul off the bowling of Paul Harris. He then lost the record to Adam Gilchrist before regaining it when he caught Mushfiqur Rahim of Bangladesh in February 2008.^[1] Boucher is also second on the all-time list in One Day Internationals, also behind Adam Gilchrist. He once held the record for the highest score by a nightwatchman in Test cricket with 125 for South Africa v Zimbabwe at Harare in 1999-00.^[2] On 12 March 2006 he hit the winning runs for South Africa against Australia in what had been the Greatest One Day International ever played.^[3]

Later in 2006, on 20 September, he made his maiden ODI century, hitting an unbeaten 147 against Zimbabwe from a mere 68 balls. His hundred came up off just 44 balls, the second-fastest ODI century ever. Boucher did benefit, however, from some very poor Zimbabwean fielding, being dropped no fewer than six times during his innings.^[4] He has played over one hundred consecutive ODIs for his country and is one of only eleven players, including Hansie Cronjé and Shaun Pollock, to achieve this.^[5] In February 2007 he and Jacques Kallis combined to hit Mohammad Asif for 28 runs off an over in an ODI at Centurion. It broke the South African record for most runs off an over which was previously held by both Shaun Pollock and Graeme Smith with 27. However, this was later broken by Herschelle Gibbs with 36 runs off one over, the most possible without no-balls or wides.^[6]

In the period while the team was under Shaun Pollock's leadership, Boucher was the regular vice-captain of the team and lead the team in tests four times. These matches includes a victory over Australia, an achievement which Pollock could not manage. Boucher started his 2007 World Cup campaign in good form with a 21-ball half century, the then fastest in World Cup history (before being beaten by Brendon McCullum's 20-ball effort six days later) - scoring 75 not out against the Netherlands as South Africa scored 353 for 4 wickets in a rain-shortened World Cup match. However, this was overshadowed by Herschelle Gibbs's six sixes in an over, the 3rd time ever in world cricket and first time in a One Day International match, and thus in the World Cup.^[7] He became the first wicketkeeper in the history of test cricket to reach the milestone of 400 dismissals when he caught Danish Kaneria off the bowling of Makhaya Ntini on October 10, 2007 in the second test of the Bank Alfalah Test Series against Pakistan at Gaddafi Stadium, Lahore.^[8]

Despite being South Africa's consistent wicket-keeper for a long time, age meant that batsman AB de Villiers was given a chance with the gloves and he impressed. However de Villiers is one of the teams best outfielders and therefore Boucher continued to feature in the team. He participated in the 2010 ICC World Twenty20 and the South African coach Corrie van Zyl said that both Boucher and Herschelle Gibbs have the chance to get back in the team. He stated that Boucher will get his chance in the team provided that he performs in the domestic ODI tournament he also stated that both of them had a good chance in playing for the 2011 Cricket World Cup ^[9] He was however still selected for the Test series against Pakistan and continues to be South Africa's number one test wicket-keeper ^[10] Also during that time Boucher recovered from his six-week shoulder injury and stated that he is desperate for a return to international cricket. He stated that his main aim was to participate in the 2011 Cricket World Cup ^[11]

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Mark Boucher

• Mark Boucher's official site
• Cricinfo profile

v t e South Africa squad – 1999 Cricket World Cup Semi-Finalists 1 Kirsten 2 Gibbs 3 Kallis 4 Cullinan 5 Cronje (c) 6 Benkenstein 7 Pollock 8 Rhodes 9 Boucher (wk) 10 Donald 11 Crookes 12 Dawson 13 Klusener 14 Elworthy 15 Boje Ntini was named in the original squad, but was replaced on 23 April 1999 by Dawson

v t e South Africa squad – 2003 Cricket World Cup 1 Pollock (c) 2 Boucher 3 Boje 4 Dippenaar 5 Donald 6 Gibbs 7 Hall 8 Kallis 9 Kirsten 10 Klusener 11 Langeveldt 12 Ntini 13 Peterson 14 Rhodes 15 Zondeki 16 Smith Replacement for Rhodes

v t e South Africa squad – 2007 Cricket World Cup Semi-Finalists 1 Bosman 2 Boucher 3 de Villiers 4 Gibbs 5 Hall 6 Kallis 7 Kemp 8 Langeveldt 9 Nel 10 Ntini 11 Peterson 12 Pollock 13 Prince 14 Smith (c) 15 Telemachus Coach: Arthur

v t e South Africa squad – 2007 ICC World Twenty20 1 Smith (c) 2 Bodi 3 Boucher 4 de Villiers 5 Duminy 6 Gibbs 7 Kemp 8 A. Morkel 9 M. Morkel 10 Nel 11 Ntini 12 Philander 13 Pollock 14 Tshabalala 15 van der Wath Coach: Arthur Loots Bosman was ruled out of the competition with a lower back injury.

v t e South Africa squad – 2009 ICC World Twenty20 Semi-Finalists 1 Smith (c) 2 Abdulla 3 Botha 4 Boucher 5 de Villiers 6 Duminy 7 Gibbs 8 Kallis 9 A. Morkel 10 M. Morkel 11 Ontong 12 Parnell 13 Peterson 14 Steyn 15 van der Merwe Coach: Arthur

v t e South Africa squad – 2010 ICC World Twenty20 1 Smith (c) 2 Bosman 3 Botha 4 Boucher 5 de Villiers 6 Duminy 7 Gibbs 8 Kallis 9 Kleinveldt 10 Langeveldt 11 A. Morkel 12 M. Morkel 13 Steyn 14 Theron 15 van der Merwe Coach: van Zyl