Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v SU

When a court receives a serious allegation that a prisoner faces a threat to physical safety, it must take the allegation seriously under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court may notify prison authorities and require a risk assessment despite the usual confidentiality of appeal correspondence. Bail is not justified where the prison has assessed the risk and the court is satisfied that appropriate protective duties are being observed. Difficulties preparing an appeal in custody will not ordinarily justify bail where the prisoner has had ample time and qualified legal assistance. New points or evidence should be addressed by the court hearing the appeal, especially where the alleged evidence has not been identified.

SU was committed to prison for contempt of court for 21 months after Sir Michael Burton, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, found numerous deliberate and flagrant breaches of court orders. An appeal against sentence was due to be heard on 24 September 2019.

SU sought bail by informal letter, alleging threats of violence in Pentonville Prison. The Court of Appeal treated the letter as a formal bail application, notified the prison and obtained a risk assessment. At the hearing, SU relied on personal safety, difficulties preparing the appeal and difficulties accessing his businesses to facilitate a settlement. The central issue was whether those matters justified bail pending the appeal.

The application for bail was refused.

1. Personal safety. The court was required to take the alleged threat to SU’s physical integrity seriously under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was therefore appropriate to notify the prison, obtain a risk assessment and require an explanation of the protective steps taken, notwithstanding the ordinary confidentiality of appeal correspondence.
2. The prison had conducted a welfare check, considered the allegations, offered SU a move to another wing and arranged to revisit the issue. The court was satisfied that the duty to preserve his safety was being properly observed. There was no evidence of an immediate or inadequately addressed risk capable of justifying bail on safety grounds.
3. Many prisoners prepare appeals from custody. SU had had ample time to prepare, had qualified legal assistance and had access to relevant documents. His approved grounds of appeal were essentially procedural, and his personal involvement was peripheral to those arguments.
4. Any new points or evidential matters could be considered by the full court hearing the appeal. They did not justify bail, particularly since the alleged new evidence had not been identified or explained.
5. Although SU’s letter was not in the proper form required by the Rules, the court was entitled in the urgent circumstances to treat it as a formal bail application. Other matters, including flight risk, did not require determination.

Order: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): in [2019] EWCA Civ 1574, refused SU’s application for bail pending his sentence appeal.
• High Court: Sir Michael Burton, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, ordered SU’s committal to prison for 21 months on 29 March 2019 following findings made in a judgment dated 27 March 2019. No citation for that decision was stated in the judgment.