Tektas v First Instance Court of Brussels, Belgium

On an application for bail in extradition proceedings, the court must consider bail afresh and make its own assessment on the evidence. Bail may be refused where there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender, despite proposed conditions. Relevant factors include the seriousness and consequences of the alleged offences, any relevant foreign conviction and sentence, cross-border links, financial or organisational capacity, personal circumstances, and the adequacy of proposed safeguards. The statutory presumption in favour of bail is rebutted where those factors establish the required level of risk. Proposed conditions must be assessed in the context of the whole case and need not be accepted where they do not allay the court’s concerns.

The applicant sought bail pending extradition proceedings to Belgium. Bail had previously been refused by district judges on 9 and 16 March 2020 and 28 July 2020. The applicant relied on his United Kingdom residence, employment, personal relationship, cooperation with the authorities, proposed conditions and a security. The respondent relied on the seriousness of the Belgian allegations, the applicant’s Finnish conviction for aggravated money laundering, his international links and the risk that he would fail to surrender.

The central issue was whether, on a fresh consideration of bail, there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released subject to the proposed conditions.

1. Bail refused. The court concluded that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released, notwithstanding the proposed conditions.
2. Under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, the court considered bail afresh and formed its own assessment. It nevertheless agreed with the conclusions previously reached by the district judges.
3. The alleged Belgian offending was serious, sophisticated and cross-border. It involved forgery, fraud and computer-related crime, a bank transfer of US$1.9 million and a possible maximum sentence of 15 years. The seriousness of the allegations and the consequences of conviction provided a strong incentive to avoid trial and supported concern about non-surrender.
4. The Finnish conviction for aggravated money laundering was significant. The 14-month suspended custodial sentence remained operational until June 2021. The conviction also had particular significance because the alleged Belgian offending was said to involve a United Kingdom/Finland network engaged in computer-related fraud.
5. The applicant’s personal circumstances did not sufficiently reduce the risk. His relationship and United Kingdom residence were relevant, but the circumstances of the relationship, the links to other countries and the evidence of locational mobility supported the risk assessment. His strong resistance to extradition was a double-edged factor.
6. The statutory presumption in favour of bail was rebutted. The proposed residence, electronic monitoring, reporting requirements, travel restrictions, passport retention and £5,000 security did not allay the court’s concerns.

The judgment records that bail had previously been refused by DJ Snow on 9 and 16 March 2020 and by DJ Robinson on 28 July 2020. The Administrative Court considered the application afresh and refused bail.