The spotlight has been tightening lately around the issue of government reform of bail laws.

This always going to be a tricky maneuver and I can’t help but get the feeling that there will be some change if for no other reason than a newly elected government and Justice Minister wants to demonstrate how they are doing something about a system which, they argue, is broken.

I know this is pretty cynical take to put on it but let's face it, in this respect, as a policeman might say – “they’ve got form”

The problem with reforming bail laws and being too prescriptive is that judges are the ones who are dealing with the people in front of them.

Now, it has been a while since I practised law but I remember there being many factors in deciding whether or not an individual was granted bail.

This included the questions of whether the crime they have been charged with was likely to result in what is euphemistically referred to as a “custodial sentence” in which case time spent on remand was usually deducted from the sentence. Other reasons were: the likelihood of them absconding; previous failures to turn up to a court appearance; the seriousness of the offence; whether violence was a factor, the protection of witnesses; the criminal record of the accused. In the end, the decision, and the jurisdiction rests with the judge.

As soon as politicians start meddling with this process one gets the feeling that they are looking at tying hands and forcing judges to grant bail to offenders against their better judgment.

Let’s not forget, the judge has each individual accused, and all available and relevant information about that person, often including the basis of the prosecution case against them.

I’m not sure that we should really be taking too many steps to tie the hands of the judiciary, with the result being they can’t deal with the offender in front of them.

Often we hear talk about the system. The system, the system, the system. But as we know criminal justice deals with individuals and their particular circumstances. So I just worry that some recommendation, no matter how mild, may be seized upon by politicians to make some sort of grand statement to show how serious they are about reforming the bail laws.

In the end, the public cares mainly about needing to be kept safe.

Acting Prime Minister, Winston Peters, has made reference to saving money. If that is the sole factor, I am not sure the public is going to be on board. Similarly, if it just a gesture or a case of virtue signalling “look we are doing something, we are reformers”, then I don’t really think it will impress if it results in more victims.

Having said all this, the question is - who do you trust to be making the decisions about who should or should not be granted bail?

Do you trust the judges or do you trust the politicians?

Because as much as a part of me hates to acknowledge it, judges are the ones who are at the coalface every day. Sure, they make mistakes, sometimes with serious consequences. But let’s not make the mistake of tying their hands too much. Especially when it results in forcing them to be more lenient than society may require.

I’m aware that my comments on this may be slightly at odds with my support of the three strikes legislation, but at least they did put a manifestly unjust exception in there to maintain wriggle room.

All said and done, I am not arguing against any sort of reform, but perhaps the focus needs to be on pouring more resources into the remand side of things, including mental health, and drug rehabilitation and other productive aspects of being in remand.

Because as many suggest, it is the worst place to be in the justice system. And make no mistake, it that will require a significant investment of taxpayer money. But for this taxpayer, I’m ok with that.