Gonzalez-Jarmillo, R (on the application of) v Republic of Colombia

In deciding extradition bail, the absence of a presumption in favour of bail does not create a presumption against bail. The court must assess the real incentive to abscond in the light of the evidence presently available, including the strength of the extradition case, any issue concerning deliberate absence from trial, refugee status, and risks on return. Serious previous offending remains relevant, but it does not automatically justify detention where the statutory grounds relied on are not established. Bail may properly be granted subject to stringent conditions where the present case has substantial unresolved weaknesses. The grant may be revisited if material further evidence emerges.

The claimant appealed against the Senior District Judge’s third refusal of bail on 8 December 2016. He had been detained since August 2016 pending an extradition request by Colombia concerning convictions in absentia for two murders and firearms possession.

The Senior District Judge considered that there was no better than a weak prima facie case. The claimant argued that he had little incentive to abscond because the extradition case was presently incomplete, particularly on whether his absence from the Colombian trial was deliberate. His refugee status, possible Article 3 risks in Colombia, and the absence of evidence establishing a 1998 return to Colombia were also relied on. The central issue was whether continued detention was justified despite those matters.

1. Bail granted. The appeal against the refusal of bail was allowed. Bail was granted subject to residence, electronic monitoring, daily reporting, travel-document and passport restrictions, a prohibition on purchasing international transport tickets, telephone requirements and security.
2. The court accepted that there was presently no prima facie case of sufficient strength, and that the outstanding issue of deliberate absence from trial might be difficult to establish, particularly without evidence of the claimant’s alleged 1998 journey to Colombia. Those matters materially reduced the present incentive to abscond.
3. The loss of any presumption in favour of bail following an alleged conviction did not create a presumption against bail. The factors underlying the conviction remained relevant only to the extent supported by the present evidence.
4. The claimant’s serious United Kingdom drug conviction was a significant adverse factor. However, the case was not advanced on the basis that bail should be refused because of a risk of further offending. His conduct since learning of the Colombian conviction, including compliance with immigration bail, was relevant to flight risk.
5. The continuing refugee-status issue and the asserted risks arising from Colombian prison conditions and from State or non-State actors also provided reasons why the claimant might not flee.
6. The grant was expressly without prejudice to further evidence. Colombia could apply to the Senior District Judge for revocation of bail if material evidence altered the balance, and an early review hearing was encouraged.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal from the Senior District Judge’s refusal of bail on 8 December 2016 was allowed. Bail was granted subject to conditions, with provision for prompt reconsideration if further evidence emerged.