Government of South Africa v Dewani

In extradition proceedings, bail may be refused only where there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant will fail to attend required hearings and appropriate conditions cannot address that risk. The strength of the requesting state’s case may be relevant to the likelihood of attendance, but the state need not establish a prima facie case for extradition. The court should assess all relevant circumstances, including co-operation with the investigation, local and family ties, character, the practical difficulty of absconding, the seriousness of the allegations and the conditions available. Strict conditions may sufficiently secure attendance even in a case involving an allegation of murder.

The Government of South Africa appealed against Senior District Judge Riddle’s decision to grant conditional bail to Shri(en) Prakash Dewani. He had been arrested on a provisional warrant with a view to extradition to South Africa to face a charge of conspiracy to murder.

The requesting state argued that the evidence had strengthened and that there were substantial grounds for believing that Mr Dewani would fail to attend the extradition hearings. The central issue was whether the statutory bail threshold was met and whether the conditions imposed by the District Judge were sufficient to secure attendance.

1. Appeal dismissed. The conditions were amended in a minor respect, extending the overnight curfew from 10pm–2am to 10pm–6am. Subject to the conditions being fully drawn up, Mr Dewani could be released on bail.
2. The relevant question was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that Mr Dewani would fail to attend the extradition hearings, and whether the objections could be met by conditions. The District Judge had directed himself correctly.
3. The court did not determine guilt or innocence. The strength of the evidence could assist in assessing the likelihood of attendance, although the requesting state was not required to establish a prima facie case for extradition. The further evidence relied on by South Africa did not materially alter the balance before the District Judge.
4. Several considerations supported attendance: Mr Dewani had co-operated with the South African investigation; he had strong family, community and business ties in Bristol; he had no criminal convictions; his family had no obvious interest in helping him abscond; and his public profile would make successful concealment difficult.
5. The seriousness of the possible charge and the prospect of extradition, trial and a lengthy sentence were relevant but did not determine the issue. Mr Dewani retained a genuine and realistic interest in clearing his name, and there remained significant hurdles before extradition and conviction.
6. There was no credible allegation that he would interfere with witnesses or evidence, and no suggestion that he would commit further offences. The stringent conditions, including passport retention, restrictions on international travel documents, a cash security of £250,000, residence at his parents’ address, electronic tagging, curfew and daily reporting, were sufficient to procure attendance. Arrangements were also made for notified attendance at court and solicitors’ offices in London.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Senior District Judge Riddle’s decision to grant conditional bail was upheld, with a minor amendment to the curfew condition.