Sarao v United States of America

When varying bail, the court must assess the risk of flight and whether the proposed security provides genuine reassurance. A substantial security condition may be justified where the alleged financial resources materially exceed the security already available and the applicant’s personal circumstances provide insufficient ties. An application based on the claimed inability to access funds may be premature unless the applicant first demonstrates that no funds are available elsewhere. Bail conditions will not be varied merely because compliance is said to be difficult or because comparable conditions were not imposed in other cases.

The applicant faced extradition proceedings following a warrant issued by a United States District Court and a certificate under section 70 of the Extradition Act 2003. Westminster Magistrates’ Court granted bail subject to substantial security, passport restrictions, a curfew, electronic monitoring, restrictions on internet access and regular reporting.

The applicant later sought variation of those conditions. A district judge refused the application. Before the Administrative Court, he argued that the £5 million security condition was unnecessary, impossible and unlawful because a United States freezing order affected his trading account. He also sought changes to the surety, computer-access and reporting conditions.

1. Application refused. The court refused to vary the bail conditions.
2. There was a clear flight risk. The original security condition had been imposed by an experienced district judge for that reason. The extradition materials raised concerns about the applicant’s candour concerning alleged market manipulation, and his lack of a partner or children reduced the reassurance provided by his family circumstances.
3. The available £50,000 surety was inadequate when compared with the alleged profits of approximately $14 million. The applicant’s close family ties and residence with his parents did not sufficiently mitigate the risk.
4. The argument that the £5 million condition was impossible or unlawful because the applicant’s United States trading account was frozen did not justify variation. The application was premature until the applicant demonstrated that he had no access to funds elsewhere. The court considered that such evidence was necessary to provide the reassurance concerning flight risk that bail required.

The judgment proceeded under section 1 A of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.

The applicant was granted bail by Westminster Magistrates’ Court subject to conditions. A later application to vary those conditions was refused by District Judge Roscoe. The Administrative Court then refused the application to vary bail.