Crown Prosecution Service v Patel

In extradition proceedings, serious allegations and a possible lengthy sentence do not automatically justify detention pending the outcome. The requesting state bears the burden of showing why custody is necessary rather than bail subject to rigorous conditions. The court must assess the risk of absconding and the seriousness of the allegations alongside delay, the defendant’s established roots, openness with the authorities and the safeguards imposed. Where prolonged inaction by the requesting state is unexplained and the defendant has lived openly in the jurisdiction for many years, continued detention may be disproportionate.

The Government of India appealed against a District Judge’s decision granting the defendant bail while extradition proceedings were pending. The allegations concerned terrorist offences in India in 1993, including explosions causing multiple deaths, and alleged assistance to persons involved in the conspiracy. The defendant denied the allegations.

He had lived openly in the United Kingdom since 1996, had previously reported to the police, and had strong family and community ties in Bolton. The bail conditions included surrender of his passport, residence requirements, restrictions on leaving Lancashire, security of £50,000 and sureties totalling £200,000. The central issue was whether detention remained justified despite the delay in seeking extradition and the availability of stringent conditions.

1. Appeal dismissed. The bail granted by the District Judge continued on its existing conditions.
2. The seriousness of the alleged offences, the potential sentence and the possibility that the defendant might seek to avoid extradition were powerful considerations in favour of detention. They were not, however, determinative.
3. The requesting state bore the burden of showing why the defendant should remain in custody rather than be released on bail subject to potentially rigorous conditions. The court was entitled to consider the unexplained delay in seeking extradition, particularly where the defendant had been present and known to the authorities for many years.
4. The defendant had lived openly in the United Kingdom since 1996, had not concealed the allegations from the British authorities, and had strong family and community roots in Bolton. These matters materially reduced the justification for continued detention and supported the practical effectiveness of the bail conditions.
5. In the circumstances, continued custody pending the extradition proceedings would be disproportionate. A renewed application could be made if fresh evidence cast the matter in a different light.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the District Judge’s grant of bail was dismissed. Bail continued on the existing conditions.