Breach of Bail: does the 24-hour limit mean the Court must finish the hearing in time?

A person arrested for breach of bail conditions must be brought before a magistrates’ court as soon as practicable and, in any event, within 24 hours of arrest. Christmas Day, Good Friday and Sundays do not count towards that period.

The more difficult question is what happens next. Is it enough that the defendant is brought before the court within 24 hours, or must the court also complete the breach hearing and make its decision before the time expires? Perhaps surprisingly, the authorities do not give a wholly settled answer.

What is the statutory framework?

Section 7(3) of the Bail Act 1976 gives a police officer power to arrest a person without warrant where the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is likely to break a condition of bail, or reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person has already done so. Breach of a bail condition is not, of itself, a separate Bail Act offence and will not ordinarily amount to contempt of court without some additional feature.

Once arrested, the defendant must be brought before a magistrates’ court under section 7(4). The court may then, under section 7(5), remand the defendant in custody or grant bail on the same or different conditions if it forms the statutory opinion that the defendant is not likely to surrender to custody, or has broken or is likely to break a condition of bail.

What happens at the hearing?

In R v Liverpool City Justices ex p DPP [1993] QB 233, the court explained the nature of the section 7(5) exercise. The arresting officer should state the grounds for believing that the defendant has broken, or is likely to break, a condition of bail. Those grounds may include hearsay material. If the defendant disputes the allegation, there must be some fair opportunity to respond, but the court is not required to conduct a full evidential hearing with sworn evidence and cross-examination before making its decision.

What does the 24-hour rule require?

The core requirement is that the defendant must be brought before a justice of the peace as soon as practicable and, in any event, within 24 hours after arrest. It is not enough simply to have the defendant within the court building: the defendant must be brought before the court.

In R (Hussain) v Derby Magistrates’ Court [2001] EWHC 507 (Admin), the High Court confirmed that a defendant could be brought before the court and the matter put back to later in the day.

If the defendant is not brought before the court within the permitted period, the defendant has an absolute right to be released. Rule 14.17 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 requires the court, once arrangements have been made for the defendant to be brought before it, to deal “there and then” and “as far as is practicable” with the alleged breach of bail.

Must the court also finish the hearing within 24 hours?

In R (Culley) v Dorchester Crown Court [2007] EWHC 109 (Admin), Forbes J took a strict approach. The claimant had been arrested for breach of bail and brought before a judge, but the matter was adjourned overnight so that evidence could be called. By the time the remand decision was made, more than 24 hours had elapsed since arrest. Forbes J held that the court had to complete its investigation and decision-making within the 24-hour period. On that analysis, once the period expired the court no longer had jurisdiction to deal with the breach under section 7(5), and any subsequent decision was unlawful.

The strict approach in Culley has not gone unquestioned. In McElkerney v Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court [2009] EWHC 2621 (Admin), Richards LJ observed, obiter, that the statute appears to require the person to be brought before a justice within 24 hours, rather than expressly requiring the justice’s decision also to be reached within that period.

Further doubt was expressed in R (McGrath) v Governor of Belmarsh Prison [2024] EWHC 2608 (Admin). Foster J suggested, again obiter, that the natural and purposive reading of the statute does not necessarily require the remand or bail question to be “done and dusted” within 24 hours of arrest. In that case, the court confirmed that a subsequent lawful bail decision may cure, or at least overtake, a defect in the original breach hearing.

Where does this leave practitioners, defendants, and courts?

With a degree of uncertainty until this point is fully argued and settled by the High Court.

Culley remains the clearest authority for a strict deadline, but it has faced judicial criticism and, as the editors of Archbold Magistrates' Courts Criminal Practice 2026 have noted, was arguably itself obiter because the decision was unnecessary on the facts.

Nevertheless, it will remain best practice for magistrates' courts, even faced with the daily reality of busy lists, not to exercise the powers under section 7(5) after expiry of the 24-hour period and deal with any breach within 24 hours wherever possible. If the period is allowed to expire before a decision is made, there will remain a real risk of challenges as to the lawfulness of any court decision.