UPDATE: Judge refuses to vary Rupert’s bail conditions

Rupert Quaintance appeared at Southwark Crown Court this morning before HH Judge Robbins, where he presented his third application to vary his bail conditions. The application was refused.

On 28 February, Rupert pleaded not guilty to five counts of Harassment 4, harassment putting people in fear of violence. A trial date was set for 21 August.

Rupert attempted to have his bail conditions varied on 4 April, and again on 10 April, without success. On 10 April the judge said he would not consider any further variation of the bail conditions until the 21 August trial date is confirmed.

We will continue to follow this story.

As always, while this case is sub judice we would ask our readers to refrain from speculation as to its outcome.

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “UPDATE: Judge refuses to vary Rupert’s bail conditions

  1. Thanks for update EC and co.

    Curious that a judge can be abundantly clear about no further bail variations until trial yet another such hearing takes place regardless.I thought the courts were meant to be busy?I suspect tax payer will effectively be footing the bill.Grr,mutter

    Appreciate not speculating regarding outcomes etc but just surprised proceedurally that a judges ruling would seem to be to have been ignored.Perhaps there is an “exceptional” circumstances claus or somesuch to have enabled it to proceed otherwise its a mockery.

    Ekh!, the powers that be certainly move in mysterious ways.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Criminal Procedure Rules regulate applications to vary bail, they don’t fix a set number or prevent a furgher application and it’s obvious why – you might apply to vary a bail condition (say not to leave the country) and have it refused, then have to move house, so you need to apply perfectly reasonably to vary the residence condition instead. However it is possilbe for courts to use the Rules to regulate repeat applications – normally an application should be heard within 5 days of the application being served but the court can alter that, which has the effect of rolling up the repeat applications into a single hearing and that’s what the court has done here.

        Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.