Hartun v Regional Court of Gdansk, Poland (Rev 1

In extradition proceedings concerning a conviction warrant, bail remains available and the custodial sentence faced is not determinative. The court must assess afresh whether substantial grounds exist for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released subject to conditions. That assessment requires consideration of all the circumstances, including the reliability and significance of alleged past non-compliance, the applicant’s ties and conduct in the United Kingdom, personal circumstances, and the protective effect of proposed conditions. Risks arising from the Covid-19 pandemic are not a freestanding ground for bail, but may be relevant to the assessment of personal circumstances and absconding risk.

The applicant had been sentenced in Poland for fraud offences and was arrested in the United Kingdom in March 2020. The magistrates’ court refused bail on three occasions in the extradition proceedings. He applied to the Administrative Court under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.

The court was not reviewing the magistrates’ decisions. The issue was whether, on the material then available, there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released on bail subject to conditions.

1. The application was granted. The court considered the bail merits afresh and did not conduct a review of the magistrates’ refusals, following the approach identified in Tighe [2013] EWHC 3313 (Admin).
2. Under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, the operative question was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released subject to conditions. Bail remained legally available in a conviction-warrant case. There was no presumption in favour of bail, but neither the fact of conviction nor the significant term of imprisonment faced was determinative.
3. The assessment had to take account of all the circumstances. Alleged non-compliance had to be evaluated cautiously where the underlying material had not been authenticated or verified. The evidence supported the possibility that the applicant had relocated openly for his daughter’s education, had maintained contact after June 2014, and had not been told that relocation breached an obligation. The court made no final findings of fact on those matters, but assessed their bearing on risk.
4. The applicant’s long residence in the United Kingdom, stable accommodation, lack of further offending, personal circumstances, continuing ties with his daughter, and compliance on arrest reduced the assessed risk. The pending extradition hearing and possible arguments before the district judge were relevant context, without the court determining those arguments.
5. The proposed conditions were sufficiently protective. They included pre-release financial security, electronic curfew monitoring, mobile-phone contact, exclusion from ports, airports and international railway stations, surrender of identity documents, and weekly reporting to the police. Covid-19 risks in custody were not a freestanding factor, but were relevant to the overall assessment of personal circumstances and the consequences of breaching bail.
6. The court concluded that there were not substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender. Bail was granted, with counsel directed to agree draft conditions for approval.

The magistrates’ court refused bail on 9 March, 16 March and 17 April 2020. The Administrative Court determined the application afresh under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and granted bail.