The Future of Release Under Investigation (RUI)

A Closer Look at Investigation and Charging Decisions in the Criminal Courts Review 

The Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson, has delivered a comprehensive diagnosis of the challenges facing the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Among the most pressing issues is the role of early-stage decision-making, particularly investigation, charging, and post-charge bail or remand, in contributing to the growing backlog of cases in the Crown Court. 

In this blog, we explore the findings and recommendations from Chapter 4 of the Review  which focuses on the critical early pre-charge stages of the criminal process. These stages, often overlooked in broader reform discussions, are pivotal in determining the efficiency, fairness and proportionality of the entire justice system. 

The Context: A System Under Strain 

The Review paints a stark picture: the criminal justice system is in crisis. Delays are endemic, with trials listed years into the future. Victims, witnesses and defendants are left in limbo. The open caseload in the Crown Court has more than doubled since 2019, and the remand population is at a 50-year high. 

While much attention has been paid to courtroom processes and sentencing as covered in our blog earlier this week, Sir Brian Leveson rightly identifies that the roots of many problems lie earlier, in the decisions made by police and prosecutors at the point of pre-charge investigation and charge. 

Release under Investigation 

One of the most significant concerns raised in the Review is the widespread use of Release Under Investigation (RUI). Introduced as a non-statutory alternative to being released subject to pre-charge bail, RUI allows suspects to be released without conditions or time limits while investigations continue. 

What is Release under Investigation? 

Once an accused has been arrested and interviewed under caution, the police have two options if they intend to continue investigating the alleged offence. They may release a suspect on bail, either conditionally or unconditionally, or release the suspect under investigation. 

If you have been released under investigation, it means that the police are continuing to investigate the alleged criminal offence. There are no time limits the police will set for the investigation. There are also no conditions which you must follow, unlike being placed on bail. Often released under investigation is referred to as being RUI’d.

The Review highlights several issues with RUI: 

• Lack of oversight: Unlike bail, RUI is not subject to statutory time limits or judicial scrutiny. 
• Extended uncertainty: Suspects can remain under investigation for months or often years, with little or no communication from the police. 
• Victim impact: Victims are left without closure, and in some cases, without protection, as RUI does not allow for the imposition of bail conditions. 
• Administrative convenience: RUI is often used to avoid the burden of managing bail extensions, rather than because it is the most appropriate course of action. 

Sir Brian recommends that RUI should either be abolished entirely or brought under the same statutory framework as pre-charge bail, including time limits and judicial oversight. This would ensure greater accountability and reduce the prolonged uncertainty currently experienced by both suspects and victims. 

Charging Decisions: Getting It Right First Time 

The Review reiterates a principle that Sir Brian first articulated in his 2015 Efficiency Review: the importance of “getting it right first time.” In the context of charging decisions, this means ensuring that suspects are charged with the correct offence, based on sufficient evidence and in a timely manner. 

Director’s Guidance on Charging Sixth Edition (DG6) 

The Director of Public Prosecution’s Guidance on Charging Sixth Edition (DG6)(31st December 2020) provides a clear structure in which criminal allegations are investigated and prosecuted. The pre-charge engagement specialist team at Olliers all have a detailed working knowledge of the Guidance and it is a crucial part of a proactive pre-charge engagement strategy. It is what sets us apart from other defence practitioners. 

The Charging Standard is the test to be applied by a prosecutor before making a decision to prosecute. It is contained within the 2018 Code for Crown Prosecutors. Under the Charging Standard, a prosecution cannot commence unless there is a ‘realistic prospect of a conviction’ and a prosecution is in the ‘public interest’. 

However, the Review identifies several persistent challenges: 

• Overcharging and undercharging: Inappropriate charging decisions can lead to cases being unnecessarily escalated to the Crown Court or, conversely, underestimating the seriousness of an offence. 
• Cracked and ineffective trials: Poor charging decisions often result in cases collapsing at court, wasting valuable time and resources. 
• Inconsistent application of guidance: Despite the existence of the CPS Code for Crown Prosecutors and the Director’s Guidance on Charging (DG6), there is evidence of inconsistent application across police forces and CPS areas. 

The Review calls for improved communication and collaboration between police and prosecutors, particularly in the early stages of case building. It also endorses a review of DG6 to ensure it is practical and accessible for frontline officers. 

Post-Charge Bail and Remand: A Culture of Risk Aversion 

Another area of concern is the decision-making process around post-charge bail and remand. The Review acknowledges that remanding a defendant in custody is sometimes necessary, for example, to protect victims or ensure attendance at court. However, it also highlights a growing culture of risk aversion among police officers. 

One key factor is the role of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). Under current legislation, a police officer can be subject to investigation if a suspect they granted bail to goes on to commit another offence. The threshold for such investigations is low – merely an “indication” of behaviour that could justify disciplinary proceedings.

This, the Review argues, creates a perverse incentive: officers may be more inclined to oppose bail, even where it is not strictly necessary, to avoid personal risk. This contributes to the rising remand population and places additional pressure on the prison estate. 

Sir Brian recommends that the Home Office and IOPC revise their guidance to clarify that only serious failings in judgment—those falling far below expected standards—should trigger misconduct investigations in the context of bail decisions. This would help restore balance and ensure that remand decisions are made on the basis of necessity and proportionality, not fear of reprisal. 

The Broader Impact: Systemic Consequences 

The Review makes clear that these early-stage decisions have ripple effects throughout the criminal justice system: 

Delays: Prolonged investigations and poor charging decisions delay the progression of cases, contributing to the growing backlog. 

Remand pressures: Risk-averse bail decisions increase the remand population, exacerbating prison overcrowding and straining resources. 

Victim disengagement: Long delays and lack of communication lead many victims to withdraw from the process, undermining the pursuit of justice. 

Defendant hardship: Defendants face extended periods of uncertainty, with significant emotional, financial, and reputational consequences. 

The Review makes three key recommendations in this chapter: 

1. Abolish or Reform RUI

Replace RUI with pre-charge bail or introduce statutory time limits and oversight for RUI. 

Ensure suspects and victims are not left in prolonged uncertainty. 

2. Improve Charging Practices

Police and CPS must consistently follow established guidance. 

Enhance communication and collaboration to ensure proportionate, evidence-based charging decisions. 

3. Clarify IOPC Thresholds

Amend guidance to ensure that only serious failings in bail decisions trigger misconduct investigations. 

Reduce unnecessary risk aversion among police officers. 

Implications for Defence Practitioners 

For criminal defence solicitors, these recommendations are highly relevant. At Olliers, we frequently represent clients who have been released under investigation for extended periods, often with little or no update from the police.  We understand the stress and anxiety a criminal investigation can cause. The work we undertake for clients during this stage of the criminal process goes way beyond a police station attendance. Prior to and following an interview under caution, our team will do everything it can to minimise the likelihood of a client under investigation being charged with a criminal offence. Whilst our pre-charge specialist team take a proactive and front footed approach to pre-charge engagement the psychological toll of the uncertainty of the investigation cannot be overstated. 

Conclusion: A Call for Structural Change 

Chapter 4 of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts is a powerful reminder that justice delayed is often justice denied and that delay begins long before a case reaches the courtroom. By reforming investigation, charging, and bail decisions, we can reduce delays, improve outcomes and restore confidence in the criminal justice system. 

At Olliers, we remain committed to supporting clients through every stage of the criminal process including pre-charge investigations. 

Olliers Solicitors – Specialist Criminal Defence Lawyers  

We are ranked as a ‘Top Tier’ defence and regulatory firm by the Legal 500 2025 and the Chambers Guide 2025. We are a Times Best Law Firm 2025. We are the 2025 Manchester Legal Awards Crime Team of the Year, an award we have won eight times since 2011. Many of our lawyers are Leaders in their Field.

If you would like to discuss how we can proactively assist you in relation to your case at a pre-charge stage, contact us by telephone on 0161 834 1515, by email to info@olliers.com or complete the form below and we will contact you.