Postelnicu v Italian Judicial Authority

In extradition bail proceedings concerning an accusation European Arrest Warrant, the court must reconsider bail afresh. The statutory presumption in favour of bail is rebutted where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would fail to surrender, despite proposed conditions. Relevant considerations include the imminence of extradition, the seriousness of the allegations and likely custody, possible fugitivity, cooperation with the extradition process, personal and family ties, mobility, and the effectiveness of proposed safeguards. The fact that extradition may occur shortly after release is not itself a reason to refuse bail, but its imminence is relevant to the risk assessment.

The applicant sought bail in extradition proceedings concerning an accusation European Arrest Warrant issued by the Italian Judicial Authority. He had consented to extradition, which had been ordered by the magistrates’ court, but removal was delayed for operational reasons connected with the Covid-19 pandemic. Bail had previously been refused by a district judge on 23 April and 11 May 2020.

The application raised whether the statutory presumption in favour of bail was displaced by substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender, having regard to the proposed conditions and the imminence of removal.

1. The application for bail was refused. The court’s statutory function under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 required consideration of bail afresh, applying the approach in Tighe [2013] EWHC 3313 (Admin).
2. The court proceeded on the basis that removal was due by 30 August 2020. The applicant faced serious allegations and a significant prospect of immediate custody in Italy if convicted. The court made no finding about the likely sentence, suspension, or the applicant’s precise role, but was entitled to assess the risk on the basis of the position he might reasonably perceive himself to face.
3. The chronology gave rise to serious concern that the applicant may have come to the United Kingdom knowing that he was of interest to the Italian authorities. No finding of fugitivity was made. The applicant’s previous non-consent at three hearings also tempered the significance of his later consent.
4. The applicant’s family, business and other ties in the United Kingdom were considered, but the period of residence was relatively short. The family’s ability to relocate, and the existence of possible links to Romania and Italy, supported the risk assessment. Proposed conditions, including residence, electronic monitoring, surrender of documents, reporting and security, did not remove the concern.
5. The short period before anticipated removal was not itself a reason to refuse bail. Its imminence was, however, a relevant factor. Taken together, the circumstances established substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender, and those grounds outweighed and rebutted the statutory presumption in favour of bail.

Bail had been refused by a district judge in the magistrates’ court on 23 April and 11 May 2020. The Administrative Court considered the application afresh.