Republic of India v Singh

On an appeal by rehearing against a grant of bail in extradition proceedings, the court must decide whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant would fail to surrender. The assessment is objective and must account for the continuing risk that extradition may ultimately occur, even where the defendant has succeeded on an issue at first instance. Previous compliance with immigration bail may carry little weight where the defendant’s circumstances and incentives have materially changed. Long-term concealment and the ability to go to ground may be significant indicators of risk. Family ties, surety and restrictive bail conditions will not necessarily offset that risk.

The Government of India appealed against District Judge Branston’s decision of 10 September 2020 granting Kuldip Singh bail. Mr Singh was facing extradition proceedings concerning serious terrorism-related allegations. The District Judge’s draft ruling indicated that Mr Singh would succeed on the evidence issue under Extradition Act 2003, section 84(5), although other extradition issues remained and an appeal was intended.

The appeal was by way of rehearing. The central question was whether section 4 of the Bail Act was satisfied, namely whether there were substantial grounds for believing that Mr Singh would fail to surrender if released.

1. Appeal allowed. The grant of bail was revoked.
2. Applying section 4 of the Bail Act, the relevant question was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that Mr Singh would fail to surrender. The court assessed that question objectively and considered the position in light of the outstanding extradition proceedings and the intended appeal.
3. The apparent strength of Mr Singh’s position before the District Judge did not remove the risk of surrender. Although he was expected to succeed at first instance on the section 84(5) issue, the Government of India would appeal, and the result of that appeal could not be predicted with material certainty. The prospect of eventual return to India therefore remained significant.
4. Mr Singh’s previous compliance with immigration bail was given limited weight. Between 2013 and 2019 he had lacked a comparable incentive to abscond. The unresolved extradition proceedings created a materially different incentive.
5. Significant weight was also placed on the fact that Mr Singh had entered the United Kingdom unlawfully and remained undetected for approximately eight years. That history indicated that he was capable of going to ground for an extended period. The risk was not offset by his family ties, the £25,000 surety, or proposed curfew and reporting conditions.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 14 September 2020, the court allowed the Government of India’s rehearing appeal and revoked the District Judge’s decision granting bail.
• District Judge: On 10 September 2020, District Judge Branston granted bail pending the conclusion of the extradition proceedings and the intended appeal concerning the anticipated discharge of the extradition warrant.