Rahima Abdi Omar v Prosecutors Office at the Appeal Court of Thessaloniki, Greece

When varying bail conditions, the court should begin with the original order, intentions and reasons rather than reconsider bail from the beginning. A practical adjustment to one condition does not necessarily require a fresh assessment of the overall risk or justify refusing bail. Conditions may require action by third parties, but the order ordinarily operates through the applicant’s entitlement to release and compliance with the condition. A third party’s failure to act does not, without more, constitute breach of an obligation imposed on that third party. The court may vary conditions where unforeseen implementation difficulties obstruct or delay release, provided the revised conditions remain sufficient and proportionate to manage the relevant risks.

Holman J granted the applicant conditional bail in extradition proceedings. The order required, among other matters, electronic tagging before release and an enquiry by a Police Liaison Officer into whether the applicant held another international travel document.

Implementation difficulties arose because the Electronic Monitoring Service could not fit the tag before release in the manner contemplated, and the Police Liaison Officer lacked the remit and authority to conduct the proposed identity-document checks. The parties agreed that the conditions should be varied. The central issues were whether the court had jurisdiction to make the variations and whether the revised conditions materially altered the assessment of absconding risk.

1. Application granted. The court varied the bail conditions and reissued the bail order. The parties agreed both the jurisdiction to vary the conditions and the appropriate practical solution.
2. It was neither necessary nor appropriate to reconsider bail afresh. The court was required to start with Holman J’s order, intentions and reasons. A difficulty affecting one component of an interrelated package of conditions did not necessarily alter the overall risk assessment or mean that the threshold for withholding bail had been crossed.
3. Under section 3(6) of the Bail Act 1976, bail conditions are expressed as requirements imposed on the applicant. A condition may contemplate or depend upon action by a third party, such as the police, a surety or the Electronic Monitoring Service. That does not ordinarily impose a separate obligation on the third party by court order. The practical consequence of the third party’s action may instead affect whether the applicant can be released or whether the applicant is in breach, subject to any excuse or variation.
4. The electronic-tag condition was varied because the tag’s purpose was to monitor a night-time curfew beginning at 10 pm. Fitting the equipment promptly at the applicant’s address could achieve that purpose from the first day of release.
5. The identity-document condition was replaced by a direct requirement that the applicant must not possess or apply for any international travel document. The revised conditions did not materially increase the low and manageable risk of absconding, having regard to the remaining conditions.
6. The practical obstacles caused delay to the applicant’s release and return to her children. The agreed variations were an appropriate, sufficient and proportionate response.

The judgment concerned an application to vary a conditional bail order made by Holman J on 13 July 2021. It was not an appeal.