Bail and youth remand

Start with bail, not with a detention placement. Bail releases the child subject to the duty to return and any lawful conditions. Apply the Bail Act framework from the bail chapter, then test child-specific support: a suitable address, supervision, a placement away from harmful influences, non-contact conditions, reporting, a curfew or electronic monitoring where legally available. Identify the risk and explain why a proposed measure can or cannot manage it. A serious accusation alone is not a sufficient reason for detention. Sources: Judicial College — Child Defendants in the Crown Court, June 2025, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 — youth remand and representation

A later application is not an unlimited right to repeat an identical, fully argued bail application. Equally, a new supported placement, welfare evidence, strengthened supervision or material delay must not be dismissed with a formula that nothing has changed. Identify the genuinely new consideration and its effect on the previously identified risk. The general repeat-application rules remain in the bail chapter; the child’s current circumstances still need proper consideration. Sources: Judicial College — Child Defendants in the Crown Court, June 2025

If bail is refused, the default is remand to local authority accommodationGlossary termRemand to local authority accommodation. This is not a sentence and is not bail. The designated authority receives and accommodates the child under the statutory scheme. The court does not acquire a general power to use penal detention because an ordinary home address is unsuitable. Sources: Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 — youth remand and representation, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 — youth remand and DTO amendments

Youth detention accommodationGlossary termYouth detention accommodation, abbreviated YDA, is the more restrictive youth remand route. A child aged 10 or 11 cannot be remanded to YDA. For a child 12–17, every condition in LASPO 2012, section 98 or section 99, must be satisfied. LASPO is the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Extradition has separate statutory routes; the following tests concern the ordinary criminal proceedings covered by this chapter. Sources: Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 — youth remand and representation, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 — youth remand and DTO amendments

The section 98 route: qualifying offence plus the common safeguards. The offence must be violent, sexual, a qualifying terrorism offence, or punishable for an adult by 14 years’ imprisonment or more. The child must be at least 12, satisfy the representation condition, and be very likely to receive a custodial sentence for the relevant offence or offences. The necessity condition below must also be met. An adult maximum of 14 years establishes only this offence limb; it does not establish likely youth custody or necessity. Sources: Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 — youth remand and representation, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 — youth remand and DTO amendments

The section 99 route: imprisonable offence plus a precise history. The current offence must be imprisonable. In addition to age, representation, very likely custody and necessity, establish at least one of these histories: (a) a recent and significant history of absconding on custodial remand, relevant in all the circumstances, together with a current offence alleged or found to have been committed while on local-authority or YDA remand; or (b) the current offence or offences, together with other imprisonable offences of which the child has been convicted, amount or would amount to a recent and significant history of imprisonable offending while on bail or custodial remand, relevant in all the circumstances. General poor compliance, a missed school appointment or unrelated old convictions do not substitute for these conditions. Sources: Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 — youth remand and representation, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 — youth remand and DTO amendments

Representation. The ordinary condition is that the child is legally represented before the court. The alternative is narrowly statutory: relevant legal-aid representation was withdrawn because of conduct or financial eligibility; was refused on the specified financial ground; or the child, informed of the right and given the opportunity to apply, refused or failed to apply. Do not treat a missing solicitor caused by an administrative delay as automatically satisfying an exception. The under-18 financial passport in section 10 also makes a supposed routine means-test obstacle particularly important to investigate. Sources: Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 — youth remand and representation, Criminal Legal Aid (Financial Resources) Regulations 2013, SI 2013/471

Necessity is more than predicted custody. Having considered all remand alternatives, the court must conclude that only YDA would be adequate either to protect the public from death or serious physical or psychological injury caused by further offending, or to prevent further imprisonable offending. It must also conclude that the identified risks cannot safely be managed in the community. The offence/history limb, very-likely-custody condition and necessity condition are cumulative, not alternative reasons to detain. A supported placement must be evaluated before being rejected. Sources: Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 — youth remand and representation, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 — youth remand and DTO amendments

The court must consider the child’s interests and welfare, and state in open court that it has done so. Where it orders YDA, it must explain in ordinary language why the necessity test is met. A magistrates’ or youth court must also provide the required written reasons to the child, legal representative and YOT. If a statutory condition is absent, YDA is not available; the refusal of bail does not fill that gap. These strengthened tests, including very likely custody and the revised history safeguards, have applied since 28 June 2022. Sources: Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 — youth remand and representation, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 — youth remand and DTO amendments

Remand records later affect credit. For DTOs made under the post-28 June 2022 provisions, time remanded to YDA automatically counts as time served under the statutory credit scheme. Qualifying electronically monitored bail is a different credit route requiring the appropriate court calculation/direction. Local-authority remand is not automatically credited in the same way. A particular expression such as “custodial remand” can have a wider definition for section 99’s history test than for sentence-credit purposes. Keep a precise placement and remand record and do not deduct the same period twice. Sources: Judicial College — Child Defendants in the Crown Court, June 2025, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 — youth remand and DTO amendments