The law on bail must protect people’s safety

One is that of Garry Weddell, a former police inspector awaiting trial on the charge of murder of the murder of his wife Sandra, who was then himself found dead, allegedly having killed his mother-in-law before taking his own life.

The second is that of Garry Newlove, from Warrington, who died two days after - as Chester Crown Court was told - he had been "kicked like a football" when he confronted a gang near his house.

One of the gang, at the time that he committed the murder, had been on bail on other charges, breaking a condition that he did not go near Warrington.

Some have said that these two cases suggest that the law on granting bail should be changed, and made more difficult.

The issue is now on my desk. So what do I do?

The first thing is to remind myself, and everyone else, that someone charged with an offence - however heinous - is considered to be not guilty unless and until the opposite is proved, beyond reasonable doubt, at a trial.

Until they are convicted, they have a right to liberty.

This is not an absolute right. Public safety and the interests of justice mean that some people must be kept in prison awaiting trial.

At any one time about 8,000 of our 80,000 prison population are inside "on remand".

They will have been put there after a hearing where typically the prosecution have argued for remand in jail, the defence for bail.

The judge or magistrates then have to decide on the basis of some common-sense tests - for example will the defendant turn up in court, will they commit another offence, interfere with witnesses or obstruct the course of justice?

Conditions can be imposed, from tagging, curfews and area bans, to the taking of sureties.

The hard part for the judiciary is then testing the likely future conduct of the defendants on the available evidence.

Judges and magistrates do so with great care. Sadly, sometimes defendants break their bail conditions, on occasions with tragic results.

That is terrible for the victims and their families, and no words of comfort or explan-ation will expunge their loss and suffering.

There is already legislation, on granting bail in homicide and rape cases where the defendant already has a conviction for a similar crime.

I am now looking at whether a similar sort of provision could be made to cover murder charges where this is the first such offence.

I hope to make decisions fairly quickly on this.

But I am clear that the court must retain discretion to cover exceptional situations and consider all the circumstances of the case.

Take the case of another man charged with the murder - also of his wife.

Most people would say, on those facts, shouldn't he be remanded in jail?

But in this case the man was aged 100. His defence that his was a "mercy killing" of his wife whom he loved dearly and was in the very painful terminal stages of a dreadful illness was accepted by the jury.

He was convicted of manslaughter and given two years' probation.

Few would, I think, argue against giving this man bail whilst he awaited trial; and, as it turned out, he was found not guilty of the crime of which he was originally charged.

Markedly differing cases within the same very serious type of crime are just one of the daily challenges faced by courts, and which I have to take into account in deciding what if any changes to propose.

My guiding principle in this as in all my duties is the safety of the public.

My aim is that custody should be targeted as precisely as possible upon those cases where there is a risk of harm to the public.

I will not be slow to come forward with further changes to the law if they are needed to secure that aim.