OJO v Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal Torino (Italy)

Where a European Arrest Warrant concerns a conviction, the statutory presumption in favour of bail does not apply. Bail may nevertheless be granted if proposed conditions adequately address a reasonable fear that the person will fail to surrender. The court must assess the present risk, including the applicant’s ties, travel arrangements and the practical reliability of proposed safeguards. Arguments concerning likely conditional release in the issuing state will rarely justify bail where the relevant information is sparse, the release decision is discretionary, or the argument is not overwhelmingly meritorious. Earlier release without conditions does not necessarily resolve a present concern about surrender.

The applicant was arrested pursuant to an Italian conviction European Arrest Warrant alleging participation in a Mafia-type organisation and recording a remaining sentence of two years, two months and eight days. Bail was refused by Westminster Magistrates’ Court on the day of arrest and again on 10 February 2017.

He applied to the Administrative Court for bail, offering security, a specified residence, electronic monitoring, reporting requirements, retention of his passports and telephone conditions. He also relied on his earlier release, time already served, possible conditional release in Italy, and his history of living and travelling openly in the United Kingdom. The issue was whether there remained a reasonable fear that he would fail to surrender.

1. Application refused. The applicant was arrested under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of bail under section 4 (2B) of the Extradition Act 2003 did not apply.
2. The respondent’s concern was that the applicant had insufficient ties to the United Kingdom and might fail to surrender. The fact that he held Nigerian and Irish passports, and was arrested at Heathrow while about to board a flight to Nigeria, supported the need to assess that concern carefully.
3. The proposed conditions, including cash security, residence, electronic monitoring, daily reporting, passport retention and telephone requirements, did not adequately overcome the risk. Conditions must be assessed against the present circumstances and the court’s reasonable fear of non-surrender.
4. The applicant’s arguments about conditional release in Italy could be advanced at the extradition hearing. The information available was sparse and indicated that conditional release was discretionary. Those arguments were not so overwhelmingly meritorious as to justify bail.
5. His release without restrictions in March 2009 did not assist materially because sentence was imposed only in January 2012, became final in March 2013, and an execution order was made in June 2013. His subsequent open residence and travel in the United Kingdom likewise did not resolve the current concern about surrender.

1. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Bail was refused on 2 February 2017 and again on 10 February 2017 on the ground that there was a reasonable fear that the applicant would fail to surrender.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): The bail application was adjourned by a deputy High Court judge on 21 February 2017 and was then refused by Nicol J.