Police (Detention and Bail) Act 2011

The Police (Detention and Bail) Act 2011[1] (c. 9) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that amends those sections of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 relating to the detention of criminal suspects by police forces in England and Wales.[2][3][4]

Police (Detention and Bail) Act

Parliament of the United Kingdom
Long title	An Act to make provision about the calculation of certain periods of time for the purposes of Part 4 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Citation	c. 9
Introduced by	Theresa May, Home Secretary (Commons) Baroness Browning (Lords)
Territorial extent	England and Wales
Dates
Royal assent	12 July 2011
Commencement	Amendments deemed to have had effect from 1 January 1986, other provisions on 12 July 2011
Other legislation
Relates to	Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Status: Current legislation
History of passage through Parliament
Text of statute as originally enacted
Text of the Police (Detention and Bail) Act 2011 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk.

The emergency nature of the Act meant it completed its parliamentary passage at a significantly expedited speed, being introduced to the House of Commons on 5 July[5] and completing its stages just two days later,[6] before being passed by the House of Lords and receiving Royal Assent on 12 July.

The legislation was in response to the decision of McCombe J in R (on the application of the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police) v Salford Magistrates' Court and Paul Hookway.[7] That ruling had the consequence of allowing suspects the right to be released on police bail for no greater duration than 96 hours. Home Secretary Theresa May called the ruling one of "great concern".[8]

The Act had retrospective effect, a decision supported by Liberty. In debate in the House of Commons, this was supported by all sides, on the grounds that the mistaken interpretation was the one intended by Parliament and relied on by police for the last 25 years; allowing the correct interpretation to stand would jeopardize tens of thousands of ongoing investigations[9] and a vast number of historic convictions.[10]