The ladder principle governs the use of financial obligations or sureties at bail. The ladder principle was added to the code in 1972. I believe our colleague referred to the Bail Reform Act of 1972. It essentially requires courts to consider the least restrictive form of release first and then move up the ladder to consider more restrictive forms of release. The prosecutor has to justify at each rung of the ladder why a less onerous form of release would be inadequate to manage the risks of the accused.
The bottom rung of the ladder is release with no financial conditions. The second rung is a promise to pay. The accused would say that they promise to pay $100, for example, if they breach their bail conditions. The third rung of the ladder is release with a promise to pay and a surety. A surety is someone whom the accused would put forward to supervise them while they're on bail. It could be a family member. It could be a colleague. It could be a neighbour. The fourth rung of the ladder is a release with a deposit of money—what we refer to colloquially as cash bail.
The bill would clarify, as I said, that the ladder principle does not apply to reverse onus hearings. This doesn't mean that you start at the top of the ladder in reverse onus situations. It just means that you don't start at the bottom of the ladder. You don't start at the bases: no financial obligations, no conditions of release.