Hilali v Central Court of Criminal Proceedings National Court (Madrid No 5)

On an application for bail pending extradition proceedings, the court must assess the risks and circumstances as they stand, including the seriousness of the allegations, the applicant’s background, access to forged documents, international connections and proposed safeguards. A recent habeas corpus decision does not justify treating the underlying extradition process as conclusively terminated while an application for permission to appeal remains outstanding. The court should not second-guess the correctness of that decision at the bail stage. Bail may be refused where the opposing grounds remain substantial and are not displaced by contingent arguments about the likely outcome of future proceedings.

The claimant, a Moroccan national, had been detained for several years under both immigration and extradition powers. His extradition to Spain had been ordered under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, and an earlier appeal had been dismissed. A later habeas corpus application succeeded after evidence concerning proceedings against an alleged co-conspirator in Spain. The court ordered the writ to issue but refused permission to appeal, with an application to the House of Lords anticipated.

The claimant renewed an application for bail relating only to his extradition detention. He relied on proposed sureties, a bail address and personal ties. Bail was opposed by reference to the terrorism allegations, his background, his ability to travel using forged documents and alleged links to terrorist infrastructure. The central issue was whether those matters remained sufficient to justify continued extradition detention.

1. Application refused. The court could determine bail only in relation to the claimant’s extradition detention. Any detention under immigration powers, including detention supported by the Secretary of State’s certificate under section 3(2)(a) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, fell within the jurisdiction of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
2. The court did not know whether the application for permission to appeal against the habeas corpus decision would succeed. Nothing suggested that the application was frivolous or bound to fail. The court was therefore in no position to second-guess either the correctness or possible incorrectness of the earlier Divisional Court decision.
3. The grounds relied on against bail remained substantial. They included the nature of the alleged terrorist criminality, the claimant’s background, his demonstrated ability to move between jurisdictions using forged documents, his alleged connections with terrorist infrastructure, and the circumstances of his entry and status in the United Kingdom.
4. The subsequent Spanish proceedings and the habeas corpus decision did not undermine those grounds. The claimant’s arguments concerning the probable failure of the anticipated prosecution were contingent and could not justify release while the appellate position remained unresolved.
5. Mr Justice Mitting agreed with the reasons given by Lord Justice Laws.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): an earlier Divisional Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal against the extradition order and refused permission to appeal.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): a later Divisional Court granted habeas corpus after concluding that the extradition order had been invalidated by subsequent events, but refused permission to appeal. An application for permission to appeal to the House of Lords was pending.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): the present application for bail relating to extradition detention was refused.