Clarke, R (on the application of) v Government of Norway

In extradition proceedings, bail should be refused where there is a substantial ground for believing that the person would fail to surrender. The court must assess the risk realistically by considering the seriousness of the alleged offences, the likely incentive to abscond, the person’s previous conduct, and any circumstances said to reduce the risk, including age, health and proposed bail conditions. A credible explanation for earlier absconding does not remove the need to consider whether the same circumstances may create a continuing incentive not to surrender.

Roger and Susan Clarke were detained in connection with extradition proceedings brought by the Government of Norway. They were wanted in relation to alleged cannabis importation and money-laundering offences. They had previously been granted bail in Norway, subject to conditions including surrender of their passports and residence in Oslo, but left Norway and failed to attend their scheduled trial.

They applied for bail in the English extradition proceedings. They relied on their age, medical conditions, fear of reprisals, proposed accommodation and stringent conditions. The central issue was whether there was a substantial ground for believing that either applicant would fail to surrender if released.

1. Applications refused. The court concluded that both applicants presented a substantial risk of failing to surrender if granted bail.
2. The seriousness of the alleged offences was relevant. The maximum penalty in Norway was 20 years’ imprisonment, creating a significant incentive to abscond.
3. The applicants’ fear of violent reprisals was accepted, for present purposes, as an explanation for their earlier departure from Norway. It also increased the concern that they would again seek to avoid surrender if faced with extradition.
4. The court had to assess the applicants’ health and personal circumstances against their previous conduct. Their absence from Norway had resulted from their own actions, and they had lived in the United Kingdom for nearly five years under changed names while knowing that they were wanted for prosecution.
5. The proposed safeguards, including their age, health, accommodation and a substantial security offered by a family member, reduced but did not eliminate the risk. Their previous failure to comply with Norwegian bail conditions was powerful evidence that they might abscond again.

Accordingly, both applications for bail were refused.