Brazuks v General Office of the Republic of Latvia

In an extradition bail application, the seriousness of the alleged offences and the increasing incentive to abscond as the extradition hearing approaches may justify refusing bail, even where stringent conditions have previously been observed. Such a refusal is necessarily based on the circumstances and information presently available. It does not bind the judge who later determines the extradition proceedings, who must consider any renewed bail application afresh.

The applicant faced an extradition warrant in Latvia for serious robbery offences. He had previously been granted bail subject to residence, electronic tagging, curfew, reporting, passport surrender and a financial security. Bail was later revoked when accommodation became unaffordable. He applied for bail on the same conditions after his fiancée obtained employment and the rent became affordable.

The respondent opposed bail on the basis that he posed an absconding risk. The applicant’s proposed challenge to extradition concerned alleged prison conditions in Latvia and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The issue was whether bail should be granted at that stage.

1. Bail refused. The applicant faced serious robbery charges carrying a potentially significant minimum sentence. The seriousness of the allegations was relevant to the assessment of absconding risk.
2. The fact that the applicant had complied with bail conditions for a substantial period did not determine the application. The approach of the extradition hearing, and the pressure created by the increasing prospect of extradition, could increase the incentive to abscond.
3. The existing conditions, including residence, tagging, curfew, police reporting, passport surrender and £1,000 security, did not sufficiently address the risk on the information currently available. The court therefore declined to grant bail at that stage.
4. The court made clear that its decision was not final or binding on the District Judge. Any later application should be considered entirely afresh, having regard to the information then available and the District Judge’s knowledge of the issues concerning the proposed Article 3 challenge.