Getachew v Deputy Prosecutor of the Repuplic, Italy (Rev 1)

In an extradition conviction-warrant case, bail may be reconsidered afresh on the material before the court, but there is no presumption in favour of release. The question is whether substantial grounds exist for considering that the requested person would fail to surrender, assessed objectively in light of all relevant circumstances. A substantial custodial sentence may provide a significant incentive to abscond. Family and community ties, proposed conditions and security must be weighed, but need not displace that risk. Where excessive detention is relied on under Lanigan [2016] QB 252, the court must first be satisfied that the authorities have exercised insufficient diligence in pursuing the extradition. Only then can excessive detention provide an independent basis for bail.

The applicant sought bail pending extradition proceedings to Italy under a conviction European arrest warrant. He had been convicted and sentenced in Italy to four years and eight months’ imprisonment. Bail had previously been refused on four occasions by district judges. The applicant relied on his open conduct, family and community ties, proposed bail conditions, security and delay since arrest. The respondent argued that substantial grounds existed for believing that he would fail to surrender. The central issues were whether the risk of non-surrender was established despite the proposed conditions and whether delay engaged the principle in Lanigan [2016] QB 252.

1. Bail refused. The court considered the application afresh, making its own assessment of the material and submissions. It did not make final findings of fact, but assessed the relevant features objectively for the purpose of evaluating risk.
2. There was no presumption in favour of bail in a conviction-warrant case. The applicable question was whether there were substantial grounds for considering that the applicant would fail to surrender if released, notwithstanding the proposed conditions.
3. The sentence of four years and eight months’ imprisonment was a very considerable custodial term and created a strong incentive to avoid extradition. That factor had to be assessed alongside the applicant’s family circumstances and the other evidence.
4. The court was not persuaded that the applicant’s apparent failure to notify the Italian authorities of a change of address, following formal notification of the investigation and the obligation to provide an address, could be disregarded. The evidence concerning his reaction to the European arrest warrant and identification also caused concern. These matters materially supported the assessment of risk, although they did not determine the extradition issues for the district judge.
5. The family’s importance and needs were accepted. The court rejected the suggestion that the whole family relocating elsewhere should, in the circumstances, be treated as a significant risk. The relevant concern was whether the applicant himself would leave his family to avoid extradition. The proposed conditions and the £3,000 security did not sufficiently allay that concern.
6. The reliance on Lanigan [2016] QB 252 failed. The court understood that principle as requiring insufficient diligence in pursuing extradition to be established before excessive detention could trigger bail. The delays were substantially attributable to the Covid-19 pandemic and, on one occasion, the applicant’s symptoms. The proceedings had also been progressed through the provision of reports and further information. The necessary threshold of insufficient diligence was not met.
7. There were therefore substantial grounds for considering that the applicant would fail to surrender if released. Bail was refused.