One could argue that almost anyone can ‘throw a punch’ these days, cause serious physical damage, and still be granted bail. And that is just wrong.
Remember the Ryan Wells case from last July? A much more serious and vicious assault caught on camera.
Remember the public outrage when that animal was bailed? Reason? As you stated, the remand centres are full.
So, what does this mean? That bail should automatically be allowed for violent offenders because there is no place to hold them? Is that the only solution? If Wells was bailed, then it stands to reason that Ms Potts would be bailed.
Should violent offenders be granted bail? How severe must an assault be before bail is refused? How is a person who has committed a violent offence not a risk to the community? Are judges in touch with public opinion? Are the courts too lenient in dealing with violent crime?
You hit someone in Japan, regardless of the extent of the injury being caused, you will be arrested and bail automatically refused. The police will throw you in a tiny cell. Occasionally solitary confinement, but more likely with one or two other offenders. These cells are tiny. You are only allowed out for 20 minutes per day. With the exception of a pit toilet, there are no other amenities in the cell. They can hold you like that for 23 days without a charge. And they can extend that indefinitely by adding additional charges and seeking further detainment from the courts. Brian Lake was lucky to have only spent 6 days in a cell in Japan for an incident in Japan last July. An apology and most likely a compensation payment to the victim were the reasons he was freed. Otherwise he would have been detained for a while (before facing a judge and sentencing).
Countries have different attitudes to/tolerance of violence/violent crimes. For mine, Australia is too soft on violent crime. And as for bail, there is no common law right to bail. For violent crimes, I think bail should be refused in most cases.