News

When someone is released under investigation (RUI), it means that they are suspected of a criminal offence and that the investigation into that alleged criminal activity is ongoing.

They have been arrested, but not charged, and the case been passed to the CPS. However, the police are suspicious that person concerned might have committed a criminal offence and intend to continue to investigating.

RUI came into existence in 2017 after Parliament became concerned about the length of time suspects were spending on bail pending an investigation.

Previously, those individuals would have been release on bail, often with onerous conditions and required to return to the police station at various points, such as to have that bail removed, or extended, whilst an investigation continued.

The intention behind RUI was to remove the onus on those involved in a lengthy investigation from having to attend a police station frequently.

After 2017, police bail dropped dramatically across the country. In London, 67,838 people were released on bail throughout 2016, whereas in 2017 and 2018 that number fell to 9,881, with the number of people on RUI rising to 46,674.

However, there are numerous issues with RUI too, which include:

• The accused can be left in a state of limbo for years not knowing when or whether they will stand trial; and
• Protections of the accused, in relation to the review process and time limits that go with bail, were removed.

Recent case law has brought to light widespread systemic issues that mean unreasonable and avoidable delays are likely within investigations. A recent claim identified multiple and persistent failures to adhere to, or meet, the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s Operational Guidance for Pre-charge Bail and Released Under Investigation (January 2019) and adhere to the relevant Metropolitan Police Service policy.

This guidance states that an investigating officer should liaise with the custody officer to determine the type of release (Bail or RUI). They will help the custody officers complete a risk assessment and if a suspect is considered for RUI, their risk should be determined in line with existing bail assessment processes to ensure the welfare of the suspect is considered and documented.

Policy dictates that an ‘Expected Finish Date’ (‘EFD\) should be established so that investigations are conducted expeditiously to ensure parties are not subject to long delays. To help adhere to EFD’s, an effective investigation plan should be out in place and a senior officer should be fully engaged in discussions surrounding RUI and the impact on timelines.

The Operation guidance also includes suggested good practice, which includes:

• Once a suspect is released, the investigation must have a documented supervisory review at least every 30 days, until the investigation is completed. The supervisor will be responsible for reviewing and setting the post custody investigation EFDs;
• At each review the victim, suspect and their legal advisor must be provided with an update;
• Subsequent reviews by an inspector at three months and superintendent at six months will ensure RUI suspects will be subject to appropriate review and management supervision; and
• Inspectors and superintendents will need to satisfy themselves that RUI cases are being managed expeditiously.

Compensation

You may be entitled to compensation from the police should they have failed to effectively progress an investigation, which has resulted in your being on RUI for an unnecessarily extended period of time.

At Duncan Lewis, we have an Actions Against Public Authorities department committed to assisting those who have been wronged by public bodies, such as the police. We encourage individuals who have been RUI and feel the police may not have followed the correct policies and procedures outlined above to reach out and submit an enquiry to us.

About the Author:
 

Grace Richardson is a caseworker in the Actions Against Public Authorities Department at the Newcastle office. She supports her supervisor, Courtney Smith, in managing a portfolio of cases involving complaints and civil claims against various public entities, including police forces, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, local authorities, and other public bodies.

Grace assists a diverse range of clients, many of whom are vulnerable, providing her with valuable experience in managing both publicly funded and private legal matters.

Contact her via email at gracer@duncanlewis.com at or by telephone on 020 7275 2869.

Courtney Smith is a solicitor and supervisor in the Actions Against Public Authorities Department. She joined the firm in 2015, specialising in claims against public authorities and inquests.

As a member of the Police Action Lawyers’ Group, Courtney is dedicated to holding public authorities accountable when they misuse their powers, neglect their professional duties, or act unlawfully. She represents claimants in both complaints and civil claims against various public bodies, including police forces, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, HMCTS, local authorities, social services, NHS Trusts, and other government departments.

Duncan Lewis is renowned for its exceptional legal services and commitment to justice. The company employs a team of highly skilled solicitors offering top-tier representation in 25 fields of law, and ranked as top tier by the Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500 legal guides, and as one of the top 250 law firms in the country by the Times.