MONIKA SZILVIA KOCSIS v DISTRICT COURT OF PECS, HUNGARY

On an application for bail in extradition proceedings, the court must determine the merits independently, objectively and afresh on the materials before it. The court evaluates the risk of failure to surrender without making disputed factual findings that belong to the extradition court. The statutory presumption in favour of bail is displaced where there are substantial grounds to believe that the applicant would fail to surrender despite proposed conditions. Relevant matters include the seriousness of the alleged offences and likely penalty, previous compliance and non-compliance with conditions, conduct suggesting evasion, and the strength of any features said to anchor the applicant in the United Kingdom. Family ties and caring responsibilities must be assessed as part of the overall risk evaluation, but they do not necessarily outweigh evidence of a substantial flight risk.

The applicant sought bail in extradition proceedings after bail had been refused in the magistrates’ court and previously in the High Court. She had been remanded for approximately six months, with the extradition hearing listed for October 2021. The warrants were accusation warrants, engaging the statutory presumption in favour of bail under Criminal Justice Act 1967, section 22(1A).

The court considered the alleged offences and potential custodial sentence, the applicant’s history of offending and compliance with bail, alleged departures from Hungary in breach of address-reporting conditions, her attempted escape when arrested in the United Kingdom, and the proposed conditions. It also considered her mental health, her relationship with her disabled daughter, and the effect of any absconding on family care arrangements. The central issue was whether substantial grounds existed to believe that she would fail to surrender despite the proposed conditions.

1. Independent bail assessment. The application was governed by section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The court was required to consider bail independently, objectively and afresh. It was not conducting a review of the earlier refusals of bail.
2. Limits on factual findings. The court could evaluate risk on the materials before it, but could not make findings on disputed issues where the evidence was incomplete and there had been no live evidence or cross-examination. Its assessment was not to constrain the magistrates’ court, which had the primary fact-finding function.
3. Risk of failure to surrender. The warrants were accusation warrants and therefore attracted a presumption in favour of bail. That presumption was displaced where, considering all the circumstances and proposed conditions, there were substantial grounds to believe that the applicant would fail to surrender.
4. Relevant circumstances. The court was entitled to consider the likely significance of a custodial sentence, the applicant’s previous offending and non-compliance, alleged departures from Hungary without reporting changes of address, the circumstances of her arrest, and the prospect of extradition and criminal proceedings. These matters were recent, directly connected with avoidance, and materially increased the assessed risk.
5. Anchoring features. The applicant’s ties to her disabled daughter, the daughter’s care needs, and the consequences for other family carers were potentially important anchoring features. They had to be evaluated against the whole evidential picture, including the applicant’s previous periods of absence from the United Kingdom. In this case they did not provide a sufficiently strong anchor to overcome the substantial concerns about absconding.
6. Disposition. The presumption in favour of bail was displaced. The application for bail was refused.

The judgment records that bail had previously been refused in the magistrates’ court and by Sir Duncan Ouseley in the High Court on 5 February 2021. The present court considered the bail application afresh and refused it.