Meaning of "Held to Bail"

[RivkahChaya]

Bail, in the UK anyway, is not "an amount of money". It is release under an obligation to return at a later date. Conditions, including sureties, can be attached, but bail can also be unconditional.

Technically, it's that in the US too, but it's come to mean the thing, usually a sum of money, that you post as a condition of bail. Other conditions might be wearing an ankle monitor (a GPS tracker), taking Antabuse (a medication that nauseates you if you drink alcohol when you are taking it), or surrendering your passport. However, in the US, we do talk about "carrying bail money" when you go out to do something where you might get arrested, like a protest march, or asking someone to "loan me bail" (yeah, we use "loan" as a verb), which never means "lend me the title to your car"; it always means "lend me cash."

My point about at or in (the) hospital was just that prepositions are sometimes arbitrary. Why are pictures "on" the wall, and not "at" the wall? Well, because we "hang" pictures, and hang already took "on," I suppose, but that's still rather arbitrary, since we hang up phones. And "hang up on" someone, by pressing a button. And "voice-dial," as a verb, is my favorite oxymoron.

All I was saying is that held at bail vs. held on bail is probably just a matter of usage and change over time, and they probably mean the same thing.

[Jack Whicher]

Held to Bail means that an accused can be released from jail by posting a bond with the court.

This usually takes place when an accused has a trial date set.

For some, the court says they have to stay in jail until they come to trial. Those are said to be held without bail.

For others, the court allows them to post a bond and be released from jail. They have to appear back in court for trial, but they are at liberty until then. Those are held to bail.

[Jack Whicher]

An Inquest is not a trial where the accused is found guilty of a crime. It's a proceeding to determine two things:
1) whether a crime has been committed (as opposed to accidental death)
2) whether there is enough evidence against the accused to justify a trial. (In American jurisprudence we say "probable cause" to believe the accused committed the crime.)

It gets confusing because an Inquest traditionally had a jury, like a trial. But the jury an an Inquest was more like a Grand Jury that accuses someone of a crime rather than a trial jury that determines guilt or innocence.

If an inquest finds reason to believe an accused committed a crime the accused is "bound over" to stand trial. This is not a guilty verdict, it's an order directing a defendant to go to a trial.

Then the magistrate either lets the defendant post a bond and go free until their trial (held to bail,) or orders them to stay in jail until trial (held without bail)

[RivkahChaya]

Preposition use can shift in language. We're undergoing one now in US English, where being "close to" someone or something means being in proximity to it, but while it used to be used to mean emotionally close as well, this second meaning is being supplanted by the expression "close with." You are close to your friend when you sit next to him on the couch, but you are close with him if he is your very good friend and confidante.

In the US a person held but permitted bail, although the amount has not been decided, so the person cannot yet be released is "held pending bail," and someone who has been awarded bail, but not posted it yet is "held with bail." I don't know if "held to bail" is a Britishism or just an archaic expression, but pronouns are one of the most unpredictable things in English. I once spent several minutes trying to explain to a non-native speaker the difference between being "in the hospital," and "at the hospital." She mostly got it, but had difficulty understanding why someone being treated at the ER wasn't "in" the hospital. Usually Americans specify that someone is "at the Emergency Room," and not "at the hospital," when someone is being treated at the ER for just that reason, though.

I could list a number of preposition-verb mates in Chaucer and Shakespeare that have changed in current English, but I don't know if anyone would find that interesting.

We could probably all list American/UK prepositional differences, although I think lately a lot of people use both, given the number of movies and TV shows that get shown on both sides of the pond.

[Wickerman]

An Inquest is not a trial where the accused is found guilty of a crime. It's a proceeding to determine two things:
1) whether a crime has been committed (as opposed to accidental death)
2) whether there is enough evidence against the accused to justify a trial. (In American jurisprudence we say "probable cause" to believe the accused committed the crime.)

It gets confusing because an Inquest traditionally had a jury, like a trial. But the jury an an Inquest was more like a Grand Jury that accuses someone of a crime rather than a trial jury that determines guilt or innocence.

If an inquest finds reason to believe an accused committed a crime the accused is "bound over" to stand trial. This is not a guilty verdict, it's an order directing a defendant to go to a trial.

Then the magistrate either lets the defendant post a bond and go free until their trial (held to bail,) or orders them to stay in jail until trial (held without bail)

Hi Jack.
Sorry to hear the Road Hill case didn't go too well.


One of the problems we have when debating law & legal issues is the tendency to talk about the present, when discussing the past.
Police & Coroners duties have changed over the past hundred plus years, but on the subject of Coroners duties you may like to view Coroners Act 1887:

https://ia700406.us.archive.org/26/items/coronersact1887w00melsuoft/coronersact1887w00melsuoft.pdf

The Coroner's Inquest, in the period we normally discuss (1888) was intended to discover the who, where, when & how the victim died, ie;
- Establish the identity of the victim.
- Where death took place.
- When death occurred.
- By what means death occurred.
There is no requirement to make accusations against anyone.

The Jury then decides whether death was natural or by foul play.
All witnesses who attend do so by command of the Coroner, who makes his selection from reading the witness statements obtained by police.

[Jack Whicher]

Hi Jack.
Sorry to hear the Road Hill case didn't go too well.


One of the problems we have when debating law & legal issues is the tendency to talk about the present, when discussing the past.
Police & Coroners duties have changed over the past hundred plus years, but on the subject of Coroners duties you may like to view Coroners Act 1887:

https://ia700406.us.archive.org/26/items/coronersact1887w00melsuoft/coronersact1887w00melsuoft.pdf

The Coroner's Inquest, in the period we normally discuss (1888) was intended to discover the who, where, when & how the victim died, ie;
- Establish the identity of the victim.
- Where death took place.
- When death occurred.
- By what means death occurred.
There is no requirement to make accusations against anyone.

The Jury then decides whether death was natural or by foul play.
All witnesses who attend do so by command of the Coroner, who makes his selection from reading the witness statements obtained by police.

No need for condolences, I was happy with the outcome of the Road Hill case.

Between Foley's interference and the coroner's refusal to examine everyone on my witness list, there wasn't enough evidence to convict Constance. I said she was the culprit. A year after I retired Constance confessed, was convicted of her brother's murder, and served 20 years.

*****

In law school procedure classes, we were urged to RTDS (Read The D*** Statute) As applied, RTDS means there is no need to speculate on the duties of an inquest when they are spelled out by a statute or act (in this case, the Coroners Act of 1887.)

At page 81, the Coroners Act of 1887 sets out the procedure at an inquest:

(3.) After viewing the body and hearing the evidence the jury shall give their verdict, and certify it by an inquisition in writing, setting forth, so far as such particulars have been proved to them, who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and, if he came by his death by murder or manslaughter, the persons if any, whom the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter, or of being accessories before the fact to such murder.”

In determining "how... the deceased came by his death..." a coroners jury necessarily considers whether it was by murder.

If it was murder, the inquest jury must also (if possible) determine "the persons if any, ... guilty of such murder..."

***

My expertise (35 years of practice in criminal law) is in American jurisprudence, however it appears that the British system is similar in this area. In Kansas we have a statute, KSA 22a-320 (h) that defines the duties of a jury/coroner at an inquest:

" If the inquisition finds a crime has been committed on the deceased, and name the person the jury believes has committed the crime"


I think it's safe to say that a Ripper inquest was charged with determining the identity of the murderer.

[Wickerman]

Indeed, and the references to Bail in that document tend to support the proposals mentioned previously, that "Held to Bail" means the person, after being granted Bail, is required to observe the conditions of Bail, as opposed to being held in custody until Bail is established.

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed, and the references to Bail in that document tend to support the proposals mentioned previously, that "Held to Bail" means the person, after being granted Bail, is required to observe the conditions of Bail, as opposed to being held in custody until Bail is established.

If you are referring to 1888 I don't think they imposed bail conditions other than for the accused when bailed by a court, for him, or her, to agree to present himself or herself to a given court at a given time on a given date.

I stand to be corrected here but held to bail in 1888 could mean to be given bail, but not released from custody until sureties had been found and had been approved.

As was I believe the case with Tumblety hence the 48 hour gap between his committal and him being released with bail being granted

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

If you are referring to 1888 I don't think they imposed bail conditions other than for the accused when bailed by a court, for him, or her, to agree to present himself or herself to a given court at a given time on a given date.

There are two kinds of Bail Trevor, that admitted by a police officer, and that allowed by a Judge or Magistrate.

The Police Code, 1888, pg 27, point 2, begins with:

The Inspector or other officer in charge of a British police station, may, under the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, s. 38, admit to Bail, with or without sureties....

It further allows that bail is permitted if the accused cannot be presented before a magistrate within the required 24 hours.

Assuming "Held" means physically detained in custody then this cannot be beyond the 24 hour time window, therefore, he would not be "Held to Bail", but simply in custody.
I understand this condition has been suggested earlier in the thread, but how long can an accused be held until sureties are confirmed?
I do not see that situation allowed for in The Police code.

[Wickerman]

"Finally the matter was placed in the hands of the District Attorney Fellows, who took such vigorous action that in a short time that all the persons named were in custody or held to bail"
Staffordshire Sentinel, 1 Oct. 1889.

[Monty]

Police Code 1888?

;-)

Monty
:-)

[Trevor Marriott]

There are two kinds of Bail Trevor, that admitted by a police officer, and that allowed by a Judge or Magistrate.

The Police Code, 1888, pg 27, point 2, begins with:

The Inspector or other officer in charge of a British police station, may, under the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, s. 38, admit to Bail, with or without sureties....

It further allows that bail is permitted if the accused cannot be presented before a magistrate within the required 24 hours.

Assuming "Held" means physically detained in custody then this cannot be beyond the 24 hour time window, therefore, he would not be "Held to Bail", but simply in custody.
I understand this condition has been suggested earlier in the thread, but how long can an accused be held until sureties are confirmed?
I do not see that situation allowed for in The Police code.

I think the procedure would be that the in the case of sureties the magistrate would remand a person in custody with a caveat that bail would be granted subject to sureties. If no sureties were found then the person could potentially stay in custody until the max of up to 8 days was up and then be brought back before the magistrate for either committal or perhaps a new bail application.

If the case had reached committal stage then after committal a person could again be bailed again, subject to sureties, If no sureties were found and the court were not prepared to grant bail in an event then there would be no time limits for the persons detention, in reality he could stay in custody until his trial date if the magistrate saw fit.

In 1888 in think you will find that there was no legislation relative to the imposition of bail conditions.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Ok Trevor, or anyone who can help.

Here is another press account that seems to hold the term "Held to Bail" as significant.

"The total number of persons committed or held to bail last year for criminal offences in England and Wales, was 20,984...".(this number is further broken down into how many were literate, and to what degree).
Norfolk Chronicle, 20 May, 1837.

Why would "Held to Bail" be as significant as "Committed", if it only meant a short detention in Custody before Bail being granted?
Surely "Held to Bail" must be the term used for a prisoner being "Bailed".

In other words, 20,984 persons were either Committed or Bailed in England and Wales.

[Wickerman]

Police Code 1888?

;-)

Monty
:-)

Please excuse the senior moment...

[Trevor Marriott]

Ok Trevor, or anyone who can help.

Here is another press account that seems to hold the term "Held to Bail" as significant.

"The total number of persons committed or held to bail last year for criminal offences in England and Wales, was 20,984...".(this number is further broken down into how many were literate, and to what degree).
Norfolk Chronicle, 20 May, 1837.

Why would "Held to Bail" be as significant as "Committed", if it only meant a short detention in Custody before Bail being granted?
Surely "Held to Bail" must be the term used for a prisoner being "Bailed".

In other words, 20,984 persons were either Committed or Bailed in England and Wales.

It would not necessarily mean a short detention as I stated previous. A person could be committed and bailed there and then. Alternatively a person could be granted bail but not released until sureties in place. that would seem to be a logical explanation for "held to bail"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk