Klisins v Regional Court of Dobele, Latvia

On an application for bail in extradition proceedings, the court must determine afresh whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender, notwithstanding proposed bail conditions. The court does not conduct a supervisory review of the magistrates’ decision. Relevant considerations include the sentence faced, the seriousness and persistence of the underlying offending, any history of disregarding legal obligations, domestic criminal convictions, family ties and proposed conditions. Difficult prison circumstances and possible failures of healthcare may engage separate legal rights and duties, but they do not displace the central flight-risk question.

The applicant sought bail pending extradition proceedings to Latvia. The magistrates’ court had refused bail on three previous occasions, most recently on 8 April 2020. The applicant relied on his settled family life, proposed conditions, voluntary attendance at a police station, the age at which the Latvian offending occurred, and serious mental-health and prison-healthcare concerns.

The court had to determine the proper approach to the application and whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released despite conditions.

1. Jurisdiction and approach. The application was considered afresh. The court was not reviewing the magistrates’ refusals in a supervisory manner. The judge relied on [2013] EWHC 3313 (Admin) at paragraph 5 for that approach.
2. Applicable question. The critical issue was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released, notwithstanding the proposed conditions. This was a conviction-warrant case in which the statutory scheme provided no presumption in favour of bail.
3. Assessment of risk. The applicant faced a substantial custodial sentence in Latvia, creating a strong incentive to avoid extradition. The Latvian allegations involved 22 offences forming a sustained pattern of serious, premeditated and dishonest offending. He had previously left Latvia after permission to do so had been refused, despite ongoing responsibilities connected with the Latvian criminal process. His United Kingdom convictions, including repeated driving offences and failing to stop and report an accident, also supported the concern. His family life and proposed conditions did not sufficiently displace those matters.
4. Prison and healthcare concerns. The applicant’s PTSD, attempted suicide intervention, lack of counselling, interruption of medication and restrictive prison regime were anxious and relevant matters. Any unlawful treatment could engage separate legal rights and duties enforceable against the prison authorities. Those matters did not support bail in circumstances where the flight-risk conclusion was decisive.
5. Disposition. There remained substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released. Bail was refused.

The magistrates’ court refused bail on three occasions: 19 September 2019, 23 September 2019 and 8 April 2020. The Administrative Court considered the application afresh and reached the same conclusion, refusing bail.