Correct on the date of publication - 24 November 2025
Question:
In granting bail subject to a condition that the individual resides at a particular address, with an additional curfew condition that he remains at that place of residence within specified hours; would it also be lawful to impose a further condition that he presents himself at the door of his place of residence if required to do so by a constable?
Answer:
Section 3(6) of the Bail Act 1976 states that a person granted bail in criminal proceedings may be required to comply, before release on bail or later, with such requirements as appear to the court necessary, to secure the person surrenders to custody. This means that a person may be subject to bail with conditions to ensure that they surrender to custody. Section 3, subject to modifications, also applies to bail granted by a custody officer under the provisions of Part IV of PACE (section 3A of the Bail Act 1976).
Section 3A(5) states that where a constable grants bail, no conditions shall be imposed unless it appears to the constable that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of preventing that person from -
(a) failing to surrender to custody;
(b) committing an offence while on bail; or
(c) interfering with witnesses or otherwise obstructing the cause of justice (whether in relation to himself or any other person), or
(d) for that person's own protection or, if he is a child or young person, for his own welfare or in his own interests.
In the exercise of the powers conferred on them by section 3(6), courts have adopted the practice, when granting bail, of imposing a curfew condition, in appropriate cases, confining the person granted bail to the confines of their home during specified periods. The value of such a condition is diluted without there being the means of checking that the curfew condition is being respected.
In R (on the application of Crown Prosecution Service) v Chorley Justices (2002) this issue was clarified.
Though the circumstances of the case engaged article 5 (right to liberty and security) and article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court ruled that the provisions of the Bail Act were appropriate and struck a sensible balance between the interests of the accused and those of society.
The judgment of the case records that the issue of proportionality would arise in each and every case of a person being granted bail and section 3 of the Bail Act accommodated this consideration by requiring justices to impose conditions where necessary.
The principles of the decided case are of equal application in respect of a person granted bail under the provisions of PACE, when section 3A of the Bail Act is invoked (conditions imposed in cases of police bail).
It is important to note that where curfew is imposed that is accompanied with the use of an electronic monitor which is for nine or more hours a day attracts a half a day’s credit for each day the curfew is in place of any subsequent sentence of imprisonment (see section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and section 325 of the Sentencing Act 2020). In practice, magistrates will be advised not to impose such a condition unless it is as a direct alternative to remand. Electronic monitoring can only be imposed by the court.
See our Legal Q&A: Doorstep bail / street bail.
View the full Legal Q&A document here, with links to related and similar legal questions.
For quick and easy access in the future, click the pin icon from the top right of any document to save it to 'My Documents'.
