Burghelea v Bucharest Tribunal, Romania

In extradition bail proceedings under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, the High Court assesses the risk of failure to surrender afresh. In a conviction European Arrest Warrant case there is no presumption in favour of bail. The question is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender, having regard to the evidence and the conditions proposed. Stringent conditions, including residence, electronic monitoring, daily reporting and security, may sufficiently address the risk. The assessment must consider both factors indicating a risk of absconding and factors demonstrating an incentive to comply with extradition proceedings and pursue available legal remedies.

The applicant sought bail in extradition proceedings concerning a conviction European Arrest Warrant issued by Romania. Bail had previously been refused in the magistrates’ court. The applicant faced extradition in connection with a custodial sentence of three years and eight months, and the full extradition hearing had not yet taken place.

The respondent relied on the seriousness of the offending, the sentence, the applicant’s limited United Kingdom ties, previous offending involving false documents and illegal entry, and his use of another person’s passport. The applicant relied on his changed circumstances, his relationship and intended family life in the United Kingdom, previous compliance with bail in another jurisdiction, and his grounds for resisting extradition. The central issue was whether conditional bail could safely be granted.

1. Fresh assessment. The court’s jurisdiction involved considering the bail position afresh, as stated in Tighe [2013] EWHC 3313 (Admin). The court accepted that, because this was a conviction European Arrest Warrant case, there was no presumption in favour of bail.
2. Risk of failure to surrender. The statutory question was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released on bail with the proposed conditions. The court weighed the factors relied on by the respondent, including the sentence, the incentive to avoid extradition, previous offending and the applicant’s limited United Kingdom ties.
3. Compliance incentives and conditions. The court accepted that the applicant had a proper basis and strong incentive to engage with the authorities and pursue due process, including the extradition hearing and any statutory appeal. His intention to build a life in the United Kingdom, his partner’s relocation, previous compliance with bail and the adverse consequences of non-compliance were material. The proposed conditions were stringent and included residence, an electronically monitored curfew, daily reporting, security of £10,000, and restrictions on travel documents and travel hubs.
4. Procedural matters. The remote hearing was necessary and proportionate because it avoided risks associated with travel and attendance at court. Matters raised privately could be addressed through a confidential annex, applying CrimPR50.17 and having regard to the equivalent provision in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, as illustrated by Owens [2009] EWHC 1243 (Admin).
5. Disposition. The court concluded that there were not substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender on the proposed conditions. Bail was granted on those conditions.

Bail had been refused in the magistrates’ court. The High Court considered the bail position afresh and granted conditional bail.