Bushataj v Karlsruhe Public Prosecutor

Bail may be granted where the risk of absconding is substantially mitigated by established family ties, reliable sureties and appropriately tailored conditions. Conditions should address the particular risks arising from the alleged offences and need not simply replicate conditions imposed in related domestic proceedings. Where conditions prove unduly onerous, an application may be made to vary them.

The appellant was before the Administrative Court in extradition proceedings. The court considered whether he should be released on conditional bail pending the proceedings. The principal issue was whether the risk of absconding could be adequately managed by family ties, sureties and conditions concerning residence, electronic tagging, reporting, travel documents and contact with the authorities.

The judgment also considered whether the bail conditions should mirror those imposed in related domestic criminal proceedings.

1. Bail granted. The risk of absconding was substantially mitigated by the appellant’s longstanding family ties and loyalty, together with two proposed sureties of £10,000 each and the other conditions imposed.
2. The conditions were to include residence at the specified address, electronic tagging with a 10.00 pm to 7.00 am curfew, reporting to Edmonton Police Station twice weekly, surrender of the passport, and a prohibition on applying for international travel documents.
3. The court added a condition requiring the appellant to notify the Crown Prosecution Service and police of his mobile telephone number within seven days and to keep the telephone switched on and available between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm.
4. The extradition bail conditions were not required to mirror those in the domestic proceedings. The domestic conditions were tailored to alleged GBH matters, whereas the extradition proceedings concerned alleged serious drugs offences and required additional measures directed to preventing absconding.
5. The sureties were to be taken and were required to demonstrate their ability to meet the sums. The first reporting date was to depend on the appellant’s release from his existing custody.

Not stated in the judgment. The decision concerned the grant of conditional bail in extradition proceedings at first instance.