Court of Florence (An Italian Judicial Authority) v Cimieri

In extradition proceedings, bail should be granted unless it is clearly established that bail should not be granted. The court must balance the risk of non-attendance against the defendant’s personal circumstances and the seriousness of the allegations. Health, established residence, previous engagement with the proceedings and the practical likelihood of surrender may all be relevant. Bail may properly be continued for a limited period where the position is liable to change and can be reconsidered at a later hearing.

The defendant was arrested under a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Court of Florence for his extradition to Italy to stand trial on money-laundering and racketeering allegations. A District Judge granted bail on conditions. The claimant appealed, principally relying on the seriousness of the allegations and the risk that the defendant would fail to attend in Italy.

The High Court considered whether the District Judge’s decision should be overturned, having regard to subsequent information concerning the Italian proceedings, the defendant’s personal circumstances and his health.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The conditions imposed by the District Judge continued, with bail lasting until 3 July 2009 and surrender required at the subsequent hearing.
2. The governing principle was that bail should be granted unless it was clearly established that it should not be granted. The seriousness of the alleged offending and the potential flight risk were substantial considerations, particularly because the defendant had not returned to Italy while the charges had been outstanding.
3. The court nevertheless had to assess the whole circumstances. Relevant considerations included the defendant’s long residence and base in England, his involvement through lawyers with the Italian proceedings, his indication that he might answer questions in London, and his serious breathing difficulties requiring overnight assistance.
4. The District Judge may have been influenced by an Italian lawyer’s letter concerning the money-laundering charges. Later information suggested that the Court of Cassation had only ruled that continued custody would not be permissible on return, rather than disposing of all those charges. The racketeering charges remained a sufficient potential disincentive to participation in the extradition process.
5. Despite the difficult balance, the defendant’s health and his longstanding knowledge of and engagement with the allegations justified leaving the bail order undisturbed. The District Judge was to reconsider bail at the later hearing in light of any new information.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the District Judge’s decision to grant bail on terms dismissed. The bail conditions continued until the subsequent hearing.