Goddard v Municipal Court In Pula-Pola (Croatia)

On an extradition bail application under Criminal Justice Act 1967, the High Court considers the merits afresh rather than reviewing the magistrates’ decision. Bail may be refused where there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender, despite stringent conditions. The assessment is risk-based and may take account of the seriousness of the alleged offence, the incentive to evade proceedings, previous breaches of bail, the recency and direct relevance of those breaches, and the applicant’s ability to relocate. Positive personal circumstances, family support and substantial security do not necessarily overcome a serious risk of non-surrender.

The applicant sought bail pending extradition to Croatia under an accusation European Arrest Warrant issued on 1 September 2020. Bail had previously been refused in the magistrates’ court. The application was made under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.

The applicant relied on his United Kingdom citizenship, family and community ties, good character, voluntary cooperation, stringent conditions and proposed security of £25,000. The central issue was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that he would fail to surrender if released.

The application for bail was refused.

1. Under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, the High Court’s function, where bail has been refused in the magistrates’ court, is to consider the merits afresh. It is not a review of the magistrates’ primary adjudication. The judge referred to Tighe [2013] EWHC 3313 (Admin) at paragraph 5.

2. The court had to assess whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released, including with the proposed conditions. The exercise was an assessment of risk on the material before the court. It did not involve findings of fact about the underlying accusation.

3. The alleged offence was serious and carried a substantial potential custodial sentence. That created a significant incentive to avoid the extradition process. More importantly, the applicant had previously breached Croatian bail conditions by failing to attend hearings in May and December 2019. The breaches were recent, directly connected with the same matters, and had resulted in forfeiture of security of almost £7,000.

4. The applicant’s age and apparent mobility increased the risk that he might relocate rather than cooperate. His United Kingdom connections, family support, good character, proposed electronic monitoring, reporting requirements, passport surrender and £25,000 security did not sufficiently address the risk. The same family support and financial security had been relied upon in the earlier Croatian bail decision, yet the applicant had failed to surrender.

Bail had been refused in the magistrates’ court. The High Court considered the application afresh under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and refused bail.