A Kent boxer wrongly spent a night in the cells after being arrested for breaching bail conditions that had been varied.
Sam Whittle, 23, of Canterbury, is currently on bail awaiting trial in relation to an alleged drug offence. He was initially granted bail with the requirement that he was subject to an electronically monitored curfew between the hours of 7 pm and 7 am.
Whittle made an application to Folkestone Magistrates' Court to have his conditions varied, on the basis that the curfew made it difficult for him to attend boxing training sessions. The court duly obliged, varying his curfew so that it applied between the hours of 8 pm and 8 am.
Making an application to the court was absolutely the right thing to do. The court is generally quite amenable to making minor variations when there is a good reason to do so.
Unfortunately the court's decision was not conveyed to either the police or Electronic Monitoring Services - the Ministry of Justice contractors responsible for the administration of the electronic monitoring system.
On Friday, 29th November 2024, by which time the new curfew hours were in operation, Whittle was incorrectly recorded as being in breach when he returned home between 7 pm and 8 pm.
He was arrested and spent a night in the cells before appearing at Margate Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 4th December 2024.
Whittle actually admitted breaching his conditions, only to be told that he hadn't and it had been an administrative error.
Addressing Whittle, the Presiding Justice said: "We will make sure these hours are changed to 8 pm to 8 am but the other bail conditions still remain."
Whittle was released on the same bail conditions until his next hearing at Canterbury Crown Court on Monday, 6th January 2025.
Something similar has happened in one of my courts. A defendant was presented before the Saturday court, having been arrested for breaching his bail conditions. I forget the exact details, but it was a technical breach and nothing malicious. The Bench agreed to vary his conditions slightly to avoid recurrence.
Word of that decision never made it to the police, which resulted in the defendant being arrested in exactly the same circumstances the following day. He was presented again before the court on the Monday morning, by which time the prosecutor had realised the mistake.
We made sure he was at the front of the queue and brought straight to the courtroom, where I explained that there had been an oversight and he should never have been arrested in the first place. I offered the court's apologies, before sending him on his way on the same bail conditions.
No comments:
Post a Comment