Sandu v Italian Judicial Authority

On an application for bail in extradition proceedings concerning a conviction warrant, there is no presumption in favour of bail. The court must assess afresh whether there are substantial and significant grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender, considering the sentence faced, the evidence, personal and family circumstances, available conditions, and any practical incentive or opportunity to abscond. The court may evaluate apparent risks without making findings of fact reserved to the extradition hearing. A proposed human-rights case may be relevant to bail, but should not be assessed in a way that prejudges the extradition decision.

The applicant sought bail under section 22 (1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 while awaiting an extradition hearing before a district judge. The magistrates’ court had refused bail twice. The applicant faced extradition to Italy under a conviction warrant concerning a sentence of three years and ten months, reduced by time spent on remand.

He relied on community and family ties, an Article 8 case, and stringent conditions including security, reporting, residence, electronic monitoring and surrender of travel documents. The respondent argued that substantial and significant grounds remained for believing that he would not surrender.

1. The application for bail was refused. The court’s jurisdiction was to consider the matter afresh, rather than exercising a supervisory or review jurisdiction, consistently with the approach explained in Tighe [2013] EWHC 3313 (Admin).
2. Because the warrant was a conviction warrant, there was no presumption in favour of bail. The outstanding custodial sentence, even after credit for time on remand, created a strong incentive not to surrender.
3. The court had to evaluate risk on the material available for the bail application. It was not making findings, or provisional findings, of fact that the applicant was a fugitive. The applicant’s account of leaving Italy while criminal proceedings were continuing was nevertheless relevant to risk assessment and called for circumspection.
4. The apparent family and private-life circumstances did not provide sufficient anchoring effect. The relationship with the applicant’s daughter had only recently been re-established, and the evidence concerning the current partner did not provide adequate confidence that the applicant would remain in the United Kingdom. The proposed Article 8 case did not, on its face, constitute a strong anchor, but the court emphasised that this assessment was not intended to influence the district judge’s extradition decision.
5. The imminent extradition hearing, the applicant’s Romanian origin and the possibility of mobility through a third country were relevant. His assured shorthold tenancy, work history and proposed conditions, including £5,000 security, did not outweigh the assessed risk.

The application was therefore refused.

The judgment records that two district judges refused bail on 14 January 2020 and 20 January 2020. This court reconsidered the matter afresh and reached the same conclusion.