Researching Bail Practices

  • Max TraversEmail author
  • Emma Colvin
  • Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron
  • Rick Sarre
  • Andrew Day
  • Christine Bond


This chapter reviews the quantitative and qualitative methods employed in this study. In employing quantitative methods, the study was limited in contrast to many US studies. It was not able to track bail outcomes: whether the defendants attended the next court date or were charged with new offences while on bail. We did, however, obtain valuable findings from observing 150 applications. In employing qualitative methods, there were also difficulties: it is often hard to understand what happens in court without seeing documents available to practitioners. Nevertheless, a combination of observation and interviewing made it possible to understand how bail decisions are made. This thoughtful discussion will interest those pursuing mixed methods research in criminal courts.


  1. Allan, A., Allan, M., Giles, M., Drake, D. and Froyland, I. 2005. “An observational study of bail decision-making”. Psychiatry Psychology and Law. Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 319–333.Google Scholar
  2. Bartkowiak-Théron, I and Sappey, J. 2012 “The methodological identity of shadowing in social science research”. Qualitative Research Journal. Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 7–16.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, H. 2017 Evidence. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, D. 2013 “Looking behind the increase in custodial remand populations”. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy. Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 80–99.Google Scholar
  5. Burns, S. 2000 Making Settlement Work: An Examination of the Work of Judicial Mediators. Ashgate, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  6. Copes, H. and Miller, J. 2015 The Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Criminology. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Creswell, J. and Clark, V. 2017 Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3rd Edition. Sage, London.Google Scholar
  8. Denzin, N. 1978 The Research Act. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Feeley, M. 1983 Court Reform on Trial: Why Simple Solutions Fail. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Gadd, D., Karstedt, S. and Messner, S. 2011 The Sage Handbook of Criminological Research Methods. Sage, London.Google Scholar
  11. Genn, H., Partington, M. and Wheeler, S. 2006 Law in the Real World: Improving our Understanding of How Law Works. Nuffield Foundation, London.Google Scholar
  12. Hinton, M. 2019 “A bail review”. Adelaide Law Review. Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 187–204.Google Scholar
  13. Huckleberry, A. 1996 “Bail or jail? The practical operation of the Bail Act 1976”. Journal of Law and Society. Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 213–233.Google Scholar
  14. Lieberson, S. 1987 Making It Count. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  15. Morgan, P. and Henderson, P. 1998 Remand Decisions and Offending on Bail. Home Office, London.Google Scholar
  16. Myers, N. 2009 “Shifting risk: Bail and the use of sureties”. Current Issues in Criminal Justice. Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 127–147.Google Scholar
  17. New South Wales Law Reform Commission 2012 Bail. Report 133, NSWLRC, Sydney.Google Scholar
  18. Rouncefield, M. and Tolmie, P. (eds.) 2011 Ethnomethodology at Work. Ashfield, Ashgate.Google Scholar
  19. Sanderson, J., Mazerolle, P. and Anderson-Bond, T. 2011 Exploring Bail and Remand Experiences for Indigenous Queenslanders. Griffith University, Queensland.Google Scholar
  20. Sarre, R., King, S. and Bamford, D. 2006 Remand in Custody: Critical Factors and Key Issues. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice (No. 310). Criminology Research Council, Canberra.Google Scholar
  21. Travers, M. 2001 Qualitative Research Through Case Studies. Sage, London.Google Scholar
  22. Travers, M., Putt, J. and Howard-Wagner, D. (eds.) 2013 Special Issue on Ethnography, Crime and Justice. Current Issues in Criminal Justice. Vol. 25, No. 1.Google Scholar
  23. Travers, M., Putt, J. and Howard-Wagner, D. (eds.) 2013a Special Issue on Ethnography, Crime and Justice. Current Issues in Criminal Justice. Vol. 25, No. 1.Google Scholar
  24. Van den Hoonard, W. 2009 Walking the Tightrope: Ethical Issues for Qualitative Researchers. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
  25. Van Cleve, N. 2016 Crook County: Racism and Injustice in America’s Largest Criminal Court. Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
  26. VanNostrand, M. and Rose, K. 2009 The Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument. Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services, Virginia. Accessed November 2018.
  27. Weatherburn, D. and Fitzgerald, J. 2015 “The impact of the NSW Bail Act (2013) on trends in bail and remand in New South Wales”. Issue paper no. 106. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Max Travers
    • 1
    Email author
  • Emma Colvin
    • 2
  • Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron
    • 3
  • Rick Sarre
    • 4
  • Andrew Day
    • 5
  • Christine Bond
    • 6
  1. 1.School of Social SciencesUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Law and JusticeCharles Sturt UniversityBathurstAustralia
  3. 3.Tasmanian Inst Law Enforcement StudiesUniversity of TasmaniaHobart, TasmaniaAustralia
  4. 4.School of LawUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia
  5. 5.School of Social and Political SciencesUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  6. 6.School of Criminology & Criminal JusticeGriffith UniversityMt GravattAustralia

Personalised recommendations