Remand Conditions And Review
I. What Are Remand Conditions?
Remand means keeping a suspect or accused in custody before trial.
Conditions can include bail with restrictions or detention in custody.
Courts set conditions to balance:
Risk of flight,
Interference with witnesses,
Public safety, and
Fair treatment of the accused.
II. Purpose of Judicial Review of Remand Conditions
To ensure remand decisions are lawful, reasonable, and proportionate.
Prevent arbitrary or harsh remand.
Enable accused to challenge bail refusal or harsh conditions.
Protect fundamental rights (e.g., liberty, presumption of innocence).
III. Landmark Case Law on Remand Conditions and Judicial Review
1. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Khawaja [1984] AC 74 (UK)
Facts:
Khawaja was detained without bail under anti-terrorism laws.
Challenged the lawfulness of detention conditions.
Judgment:
House of Lords ruled detention without judicial review violated principles of natural justice.
Emphasized need for judicial oversight in remand.
Significance:
Established importance of judicial review in remand detention.
Courts must ensure lawful basis for remand and proper procedure.
2. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (US)
Facts:
Salerno was denied bail due to perceived danger to the community.
Challenged that bail denial violated due process rights.
Judgment:
US Supreme Court upheld pretrial detention if justified by regulatory interest in public safety.
Conditions must be carefully reviewed to prevent abuse.
Significance:
Affirmed government’s interest in detaining dangerous accused.
Reinforced the need for procedural safeguards.
3. R v. O’Brien [2011] EWCA Crim 21 (UK)
Facts:
Defendant refused bail due to risk of witness interference.
Challenged remand conditions as disproportionate.
Judgment:
Court of Appeal held courts must balance:
Risk posed by accused,
Rights to liberty,
Conditions must be proportionate and necessary.
Significance:
Clarified tests for bail refusal and conditions.
Emphasized least restrictive measures principle.
4. Hussain v. United Kingdom (2013) ECHR 831
Facts:
Accused detained in remand under harsh prison conditions.
Claimed violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment).
Judgment:
European Court of Human Rights found violation due to poor remand conditions.
State obligated to ensure humane treatment.
Significance:
Set standards for remand conditions under human rights law.
Courts must ensure detention conditions meet minimum standards.
5. DPP v. Woolmington [1935] AC 462 (UK)
Facts:
Landmark case concerning burden of proof but also touched on fair treatment during remand.
Judgment:
Confirmed presumption of innocence applies during remand.
Bail conditions and detention must respect this principle.
Significance:
Reinforced that remand conditions should not punish before conviction.
6. R v. Cook (1994) 98 Cr App R 77 (UK)
Facts:
Defendant challenged remand bail conditions limiting communication and movement.
Judgment:
Court stressed remand conditions must be reasonable and no more restrictive than necessary.
Excessive restrictions can be appealed and reviewed.
Significance:
Emphasized proportionality and judicial oversight in setting conditions.
IV. Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Issue | Outcome | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Khawaja (1984) | UK | Detention without review | Detention unlawful without review | Judicial oversight essential for remand |
| US v. Salerno (1987) | US | Bail denial & public safety | Bail denial constitutional | Detention justified for community safety |
| R v. O’Brien (2011) | UK | Bail refusal & witness interference | Bail refusal upheld but must be proportionate | Balance liberty and safety |
| Hussain v. UK (2013) | ECHR | Harsh remand conditions | Violation of human rights | Humane treatment standards |
| DPP v. Woolmington (1935) | UK | Presumption of innocence on remand | Affirmed presumption applies | Remand must respect innocence |
| R v. Cook (1994) | UK | Bail condition restrictiveness | Restrictions must be reasonable | Proportionality in remand conditions |
V. Key Points Recap
Remand conditions balance individual liberty and public interest.
Courts must ensure lawful, necessary, and proportionate restrictions.
Judicial review protects accused from unlawful or harsh remand.
Human rights law (ECHR, US Constitution) sets standards for treatment during remand.
Cases repeatedly emphasize least restrictive measures and fair process.
RELATED Blog
0 comments