AB v Prosecutor General's Office, Lithuania

On an application to vary extradition bail, the court must decide the issue afresh and form its own view, rather than defer to the district judge’s decision. Electronic monitoring may properly be retained where its removal would materially weaken an otherwise necessary bail package and there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender. Personal, family and employment difficulties must be weighed, but do not justify variation where the monitoring remains necessary and proportionate. A malfunctioning monitoring system should be investigated and remedied, but that problem does not itself require removal of the monitoring condition.

The applicant was subject to extradition proceedings concerning an accusation European Arrest Warrant issued by Lithuania. Her bail included a three-hour electronically monitored curfew. She applied to replace electronic monitoring with doorstep checks, relying principally on an employment opportunity, intrusive monitoring calls and the embarrassment caused by the visible anklet.

A senior district judge refused the same application on 24 July 2020. The applicant renewed it before the Administrative Court. The central issues were whether the court should determine the variation application afresh, and whether electronic monitoring remained necessary and proportionate in the circumstances.

1. Approach. The court had to make up its own mind on the variation application. The relevant approach was to consider the matter afresh, applying section 22 (1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which applied to a variation refused by a district judge as it did to bail itself.
2. Necessity and proportionality. The electronic monitoring component was necessary. There were substantial grounds for believing that, if it were removed, the applicant would fail to surrender. Replacing automatic electronic monitoring with occasional doorstep checks would substantially weaken the bail package because the two forms of supervision differed materially in certainty, frequency and perceived effectiveness.
3. The applicant’s history of compliance, periods without the anklet, family responsibilities, financial hardship and proposed work were important considerations. They did not outweigh the need for effective monitoring at a critical stage of the extradition proceedings. The July period without the anklet, followed by the applicant’s notification of her discharge from hospital, did not establish that monitoring had become unnecessary or disproportionate.
4. The intrusive telephone calls and electronic beeping were unacceptable and required resolution by the monitoring company. They did not justify removing monitoring, since the calls were not an intended feature of the system. The court also considered the evidence concerning the proposed employment opportunity too sparse, but held that the result would be the same even if the employer would not permit the anklet to be covered.
5. The application to vary the bail conditions was refused. Re-imposed reporting requirements, had they been proposed, would not have been an appropriate alternative on the material before the court.

• Senior District Judge: refused the application to remove electronic monitoring on 24 July 2020.
• High Court (Administrative Court): determined the renewed application afresh and refused the variation.