Lendrum v Brazil Judicial Authority

An application for bail in extradition proceedings must be determined afresh by the court hearing it, rather than as a review of the magistrates’ decision. Where the warrant concerns an unserved conviction sentence, there is no right or presumption in favour of bail. Bail may be refused where there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender or commit an offence, even if stringent conditions are offered. Previous compliance is relevant but must be assessed cumulatively with the seriousness of the unserved sentence, incentives to abscond, international connections, previous offending, financial circumstances and the effectiveness of proposed conditions. Health, prison conditions and delay remain relevant considerations, but do not necessarily outweigh established objections to bail.

The applicant sought bail under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 after bail had been withheld in extradition proceedings concerning a Brazilian conviction warrant. He had previously complied with stringent bail and licence conditions, but had earlier left Brazil in breach of conditions imposed after conviction and sentence. The respondent opposed bail on two independent grounds: risk of failure to surrender and risk of offending on bail.

The court considered the applicant’s previous compliance, international connections, previous offending, financial circumstances, proposed conditions, health, prison conditions, the Covid-19 pandemic and the likely delay before the extradition hearing. The central issue was whether substantial grounds existed for believing that either identified risk remained despite the proposed conditions.

1. The application was refused. The court considered the bail merits afresh under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967; it was not reviewing the magistrates’ refusal. The court accepted the approach described in Tighe [2013] EWHC 3313 (Admin).
2. Because this was a conviction warrant relating to an unserved sentence of four and a half years, there was no right or presumption in favour of bail. The sentence created a strong incentive to avoid extradition and imprisonment.
3. There were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender. His earlier compliance was a relevant and substantial factor, but it did not outweigh his earlier departure from Brazil in breach of bail conditions, the renewed and more immediate extradition pursuit, his international connections, the absence of sufficiently strong United Kingdom ties and the cumulative circumstances of the case.
4. There were independently substantial grounds for believing that he would commit an offence on bail. The court relied on the apparent continuation of similar international offending after his departure from Brazil, the serious and lucrative nature of that offending, his professional expertise and his impecunious circumstances.
5. The proposed conditions, including electronic monitoring, curfew, restrictions on travel and security, did not sufficiently address either risk. Health conditions, the Covid-19 pandemic, prison conditions, restricted access and delay were relevant and had an aggravating effect, but they did not outweigh the properly established objections. The court proceeded on the basis that prison authorities would take reasonable steps to protect health and well-being and facilitate access. Continued detention was necessary, appropriate and proportionate.