The bail act.

It is clear that the bail act is a mystery to most people. There has been considerable anger that a twenty-five year old man has been freed on bail despite being charged with throwing a rock at a car which critically injured a twenty-two year old female passenger.
The government counters with the explanation that bail is not a form of punishment. The accused has the presumption of innocence - until convicted in a court.
Strangely, that gets turned on it's ear when bail is refused and an accused person - still rightfully claiming innocence until proved guilty - is placed on remand - and incarcerated in a gaol - locked in a cell - subjected to gaol discipline and given gaol food to eat - strip searched before and after each visit by friends and legal council - and deprived of all normal forms of family and social life.
So - why the distinction between those given bail - and those on remand ?
That is what mystifies most people. Bail should be denied if the alleged crime is so serious that there is a risk of the accused fleeing the jurisdiction of the court - or if there is reason to believe that further serious crime may be committed while on bail.
That's where reality slots in. We read in the papers of offenders on bail failing to appear in court and being rearrested for further crime - and then being given more bail.
We also read of criminals on serious charges - including murder - fleeing the country while on bail and taking up residence in countries where no extradition rights apply.
It seems that getting bail is a " luck lottery ". First, it helps if your legal council can get you before a magistrate with a serendipity attitude to life. It also helps if the gaol system is full to bursting and the judiciary are under pressure from the government to ease the pressure.
In fact, there is no rhyme or reason to the outcome of bail applications - and until the conditions for setting bail are set in clearly understandable criteria they will remain a joke in the eyes of the public !