Assange Bail Money

  flycatcher1 18:58 PM 08 Oct 12
Locked

I read that the Assange Bail Guarantors are being made to pay up a percentage of their Cash Guarantees.

I suppose it is a case of putting your money where you mouth is.

  interzone55 19:08 PM 08 Oct 12

That's the deal with bail bonds, if the defendant skips bail the bind holder has to cough up

  QuizMan 19:08 PM 08 Oct 12

That's the trouble with guarantees; no-one expects to have to pay up under them.

In my banking days, it was common to take property as collateral against guarantees and, sadly, people lost their houses as a result.

  morddwyd 20:38 PM 08 Oct 12

As I said in a previous thread, there was never any chance that these people were going to have to pay up in full.

  flycatcher1 10:24 AM 09 Oct 12

I had two questions when I started this thread.

Why did the Guarantors think that they should not cough up the Bail Money when Assange effectively skipped the country ?

And why has the amount of Bail Money to be paid been reduced ?

Surely Bail is what it says and Guarantee Bail Money is exactly that.

Sometimes I cannot understand the law in this country.

  QuizMan 12:07 PM 11 Oct 12

'And why has the amount of Bail Money to be paid been reduced ?'

I assume, rightly or wrongly, that as each guarantor guarantees the full amount of the bail, they claimed a percentage from each of them to make up 100% of the total bail.

  Forum Editor 12:30 PM 11 Oct 12

"Perhaps because the judge agreed that Assange's conduct could not have been predicted by any reasonable person"

In court there were several arguments put as to why individual sureties would suffer great hardship if required to pay the full amount. They claimed that they acted in good faith when agreeing to the bail arrangements, and that subsequent events were totally unforeseen. Their claim was that if they had exerted pressure on Assange not to seek asylum they might have forced him into a situation where he was in danger, and that it would have been inhumane for them to have done so.

The judge said that having heard from the sureties he was in no doubt about their integrity, and that he would take some account of it. he accepted that they had all trusted Assange, and that they had followed the necessary procedures in maintaining contact with him. Nevertheless, he made the point that they has all failed in their duty to ensure that Assange surrendered himself as required. He pointed out that the courts had made it clear from the outset that they believed there were substantial grounds for believing Assange would abscond.

The various sums that were imposed took into account the personal circumstances of each surety.

  Picklefactory 13:26 PM 11 Oct 12

"He pointed out that the courts had made it clear from the outset that they believed there were substantial grounds for believing Assange would abscond."

I admit to not really understanding too much about these things, but if the court thought he was likely to abscond, why was bail allowed? Could he not have been held on remand?

  wiz-king 14:11 PM 11 Oct 12

Picklefactory

Danger to the public ............. low

Cost of keeping him inside ........... high

Cost of extradition hearing high

If he absconds while on bail then cost ........ -ve ... money made!

  Picklefactory 16:14 PM 11 Oct 12

wiz-king

Thanks....simples

Advertisement

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

14 best budget laptops of 2015: best budget laptops reviews - best cheap laptops - best bargain…

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

Animated film of Raymond Briggs' Ethel and Ernest ramps up production

From Antennagate to Yellowgate: The 10 worst Apple scandals (and why they were blown out of proport)…