Martin Dobrinov Kisyov v Prosecutor’s Office, Republic of Bulgaria

On an application for bail in extradition proceedings following refusal by the magistrates’ court, the High Court must determine the question afresh. Where the case concerns a conviction warrant, there is no presumption in favour of bail. Bail may be refused where there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender, even if a substantial package of conditions is proposed. The assessment is made objectively on the materials available, without requiring the court to make definitive findings of fact. Relevant considerations include the custodial sentence, the seriousness of the offence, the applicant’s conduct during and after the foreign proceedings, the strength and duration of ties in the United Kingdom, the imminence of the extradition hearing and the effectiveness of proposed safeguards.

The applicant sought bail under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 after bail had been refused in the magistrates’ court. He was wanted for extradition to Bulgaria under an European arrest warrant relating to a five-year sentence for murder. He relied on his United Kingdom residence, employment, relationship, his partner’s medical needs, previous engagement with the Bulgarian proceedings and proposed bail conditions, including security, curfew and reporting requirements.

The respondent argued that there was a substantial risk of absconding, including because the applicant had left Bulgaria after becoming aware of his conviction and sentence. The central issue was whether the applicant would fail to surrender if released on bail.

1. The application for bail was refused. The High Court exercised a primary jurisdiction and considered the position afresh following the magistrates’ court’s refusal.

2. Because the case concerned a conviction warrant, there was no presumption in favour of bail. The relevant question was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender.

3. The risk assessment had to be made objectively on the materials before the court. The court was not in a position to make a secure series of concrete findings of fact, but could assess risk on the evidence and assertions available.

4. The applicant faced a substantial five-year custodial sentence following an offence characterised on the documents as murder. He had been present at trial and at an appeal hearing, was aware of the conviction and sentence, and had nevertheless returned to the United Kingdom rather than remain in Bulgaria to face the consequences. Whether or not he was technically a fugitive, that conduct was relevant to risk.

5. The applicant’s United Kingdom roots and ties, including his relationship, employment and his partner’s medical needs, were insufficiently secure or substantial to allay the risk. The proposed conditions, including a £12,000 security, electronic curfew, reporting, surrender of identification documents and travel restrictions, did not remove the substantial risk that he would abscond and fail to surrender.

• Magistrates’ court: Bail was refused.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The application for bail was considered afresh under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and refused.