Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

Clauses 21 to 23 concern curfew on remand being used as custodial time. We are concerned at the proposal to credit time spent on an electronic tag against a subsequent custodial sentence. Bail conditions are not imposed as punishment and cannot be considered as part of an eventual sentence. A qualifying curfew condition requires a curfew of not less than nine hours, so one of, say, eight and a half hours from 9.30 in the evening to 6 o’clock in the morning would accrue no credit. This could lead defence solicitors to ask for longer curfew periods where a custodial sentence is likely, or for a reduction in, say, the unpaid work requirement. Often a court is invited to consider a condition to reside at a bail hostel and abide by the conditions at the hostel. This can be a far more onerous condition than a curfew with electronic tagging as the offender is removed from their home. However, such a condition would not be credited—nor, indeed, should it be. I am puzzled by these clauses. The Government must be aware that the public will not warm to this proposal. As someone who is tagged with curfew conditions will be able to live at home, they may well be living in great comfort. Why should that period be set against any ultimate custodial sentence?