The most frequent decision made by magistrates in the English Criminal Justice System is the decision to grant bail. Considerable discretion is allowed magistrates in making bail decisions and in imposing conditions. Conditional bail is a popular alternative to remand when magistrates do not want to release a defendant unconditionally. In the present study, 81 magistrates from 44 randomly selected adult magistrates’ courts in England and Wales made bail decisions on systematically designed hypothetical cases. Magistrates decided between unconditional bail, conditional bail with conditions specified, or remand to custody. After making the bail decisions, the magistrates rated their degree of confidence in their decision on an 11-point Likert-type scale. Results revealed that 44.72 percent of the cases were granted unconditional bail, 44.76 percent were granted conditional bail, and 10.52 percent were remanded to custody. The mean number of conditions imposed on each conditional bail decision was 1.58. In addition to assigning more than one condition to bail, magistrates were limited in the types of conditions they imposed. Magistrates were also more likely to disagree on cases involving conditional bail and they rated themselves as less confident in their conditional bail decisions. Finally, the analysis revealed that magistrates relied on both legal and extra-legal factors when imposing conditions on bail. Implications for policy and practice include the argument that due process principles are violated by the lack of consistency in bail decisions, the extent of disagreement concerning bail decisions, and the consideration of extra-legal factors when attaching conditions to bail. Future research should focus on the rationale for imposing specific conditions. Tables, figures, notes, references