Pajumagi v Tartu County Court, Viljandi Courthouse, Estonia

In an application for bail following refusal of bail in extradition proceedings, the court must consider the matter afresh. Where the European Arrest Warrant is a conviction warrant, there is no presumption in favour of bail. Bail may be refused where there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender, and proposed conditions do not sufficiently reduce that risk.

Prejudice caused by delay in removal, and the inability meanwhile to apply for parole in the requesting state, does not ordinarily provide a freestanding basis for bail. Such relief would require a very exceptional and clear-cut case, such as where parole was inevitable or almost inevitable. The English court must not second-guess or replicate the requesting state’s parole decision.

The applicant had been ordered to be extradited to Estonia under a conviction European Arrest Warrant concerning an unserved custodial sentence. He had been held on remand for nearly eight months and had previously been refused bail three times. A further application had not been entertained because no change of circumstances was identified.

Following the suspension of flights during the Covid-19 pandemic, the applicant argued that he was blameless for the delay and would, if in Estonia, be entitled to apply for parole under paragraph 76 of the Estonian criminal code. He also offered residence, electronically monitored curfew, security and other conditions.

The central questions were whether there were substantial grounds for believing that he would fail to surrender, and whether the asserted prejudice and inability to apply for parole justified bail independently of that assessment.

1. The application was refused. The court considered the bail question afresh, consistently with Tighe [2013] EWHC 3313 (Admin).

2. Because the European Arrest Warrant was a conviction warrant, there was no presumption in favour of bail. The applicant’s resistance to extradition, the substantial unserved custodial term, the discretionary nature of any parole decision, and the resulting incentive to avoid removal were material to the risk of non-surrender.

3. The district judge had found that the applicant was a fugitive who had failed to comply with his sentence and had fled Estonia. His earlier offending while subject to court orders, substantial failure to complete community service, limited ties to the United Kingdom, and absence of a home or family here reinforced the conclusion that he could not be trusted to comply with bail conditions.

4. The offered conditions, including residence, electronic monitoring, security and travel restrictions, did not sufficiently ameliorate the risk. There were therefore substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender.

5. Even if the risk assessment had not been fatal, the alleged prejudice would not justify bail. Delay caused by the pandemic and the inability to apply for parole in Estonia could potentially matter in a very exceptional and clear-cut case, particularly where parole was inevitable or almost inevitable. That threshold was not met. The court could not assess the prospects of parole, second-guess the Estonian court, or replicate its discretionary decision through English bail conditions.

1. District judge: Extradition to Estonia was ordered on 30 December 2019, for reasons given in a judgment dated 13 December 2019.

2. High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal against the extradition ruling was refused after an oral hearing on 26 March 2020. The present bail application was considered afresh and refused.