Cebula v Nation

Where a requested person has been convicted of an offence for which a European Arrest Warrant has been issued, the statutory presumption in favour of bail is displaced. Bail may nevertheless be granted unless there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would fail to surrender to custody. In assessing that question, the court may consider failures to surrender, a conviction for breach of bail obligations, and findings that the person came to the United Kingdom to avoid imprisonment. The court should also keep proportionality under review. If later developments create a risk that detention pending an appeal will become disproportionate, a fresh application for bail may be made.

The applicant, a requested person in extradition proceedings, applied afresh for bail after an earlier refusal. Bail had initially been granted subject to conditions, but he failed to attend two later hearings. He pleaded guilty to an offence under the Bail Act 1976 and was sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment. His extradition to Poland had also been ordered in respect of a fraud offence. The central issues were whether the presumption in favour of bail had been displaced and whether there were substantial grounds for believing that he would fail to surrender.

1. Application refused. The application was a fresh application, not an appeal, under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
2. Section 4(2B) of the Bail Act 1976 displaced the statutory presumption in favour of bail because the applicant had been convicted of an offence for which a European Arrest Warrant had been issued.
3. Under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976, bail need not be granted where there are substantial grounds for believing that the requested person would fail to surrender to custody. That test was satisfied. The applicant had failed to surrender on two occasions. His guilty plea established that he accepted that he lacked a good excuse for the second failure. The District Judge had also found that he came to the United Kingdom to avoid serving his sentence.
4. The court took account of the applicant’s submission that continued detention might become disproportionate while an appeal and further inquiries were pursued. The sentence position was unclear, and the court expressed no view on whether the Polish sentences could be disaggregated. If permission to appeal were granted and further custody became disproportionate, the applicant could rely on that change of circumstances in a renewed bail application.

The judgment records an earlier refusal of bail by a District Judge and subsequent extradition proceedings before Westminster Magistrates’ Court. The present application was expressly treated as a fresh application rather than an appeal.