GPS Location Monitoring in Practice

We're now several months into GPS location monitoring in my area and my first impressions are very positive.

For those that don't already know, a GPS enabled ankle tag can now be fitted to anyone released on conditional bail or sentenced to a community or suspended sentence order. Data from the tag can be used to monitor the wearer's compliance with curfew and exclusion requirements imposed by the court.

Over the last couple of months I have been a strong advocate of the new technology and collectively, as a Bench, we have used it to good effect on several occasions. Until the introduction of the GPS tagging there was a certain degree of trust that anyone subject to exclusion requirements would actually comply with them. Now there is the reassurance that anyone stepping even a few metres into their excluded area will be detected, arrested and brought back before the court.

A couple of weeks ago I was in a remand court when one such transgressor appeared in the secure dock before us.

He had been the passenger in a vehicle that was travelling along a main road that bounded his excluded area. The driver of the vehicle had pulled up at the side of the road and nipped into a shop to buy a paper. The GPS tagged passenger, thinking nothing about it, took the opportunity to buy some chewing gum from the same shop.

By unwittingly entering the shop, therefore encroaching only 4 or 5 metres into his excluded area, a breach was detected by the system. A few hours later the police turned up and the man was arrested for breaching his bail conditions. After a sobering night in the cells he was stood before us the following morning.

The man immediately admitted the breach and was seemingly contrite for his lapse in judgement. Given that we had a map showing his exact movements to the nearest few paces, he couldn't plausibly have denied it. As this was the man's first breach and seemingly accidental we were content to re-bail him on the same conditions, with a few words of advice about the sensitivity and reliability of device he was wearing.

In that same court a second man appeared in custody, having been arrested a couple of days earlier and charged with a very serious (non-violent) indictable offence. He chose to withhold his plea until his appearance at the Crown Court the week after Christmas.

This man was lightly convicted and had nothing of note in the last five years. In the distant past he had failed to surrender to bail on a couple of occasions - this, coupled with the severity of the charge at hand, persuaded the CPS to make an application to have him remanded in custody.

Despite the defendant's lack of plea, his solicitor told us that he was under no illusions that he would be facing a significant period in custody. He wanted to spend Christmas with his family, as he realised it would be the last opportunity to do so for several years.

The defence solicitor asked that we grant his client bail with strict conditions, instead of remanding him in custody and separating him from his family during the festive period. We were also reminded of the defendant's prima facie right to bail, given that the charge in hand related to an alleged offence that was not committed whilst on bail.

Prior to the introduction of GPS tagging it would have been almost inconceivable that he would have been released on bail. Having carefully weighed up both the Crown and defence positions, we decided that strict conditions could be imposed that would allow his movements to be very closely monitored.

In this case we imposed strict GPS monitoring and police reporting requirements that would effectively confine him to his home town. Of course should he breach those conditions colleagues on the next Bench are unlikely to be as understanding.

It is reassuring that this new tool gives the court greater freedom and reassurance when granting bail or imposing community or suspended sentence orders.