Marian Cornea v Tribunal Arges, Romania

On an application for bail in a conviction extradition case, the High Court considers bail afresh after refusal in the magistrates’ court. There is no presumption in favour of bail. The question is whether, having assessed all the circumstances objectively, there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would fail to surrender if released on proposed conditions. Relevant considerations include the seriousness and likely length of the outstanding sentence, any indication that the person came to the United Kingdom as a fugitive, relocation across borders while aware of the proceedings, and the perceived prospect of resisting extradition. Stringent conditions may reduce risk but do not necessarily overcome those matters.

The applicant was wanted for extradition to Romania under a conviction European Arrest Warrant concerning a bribery conviction. He faced approximately three years’ custody, after credit for qualifying remand. Bail had been refused by District Judge Brennan in July 2021 and District Judge Baraitser in August 2021.

The applicant relied on durable family and community ties in the United Kingdom, the absence of United Kingdom offending, no history of failing to surrender, and proposed stringent bail conditions. The central issue was whether those conditions sufficiently addressed the risk of non-surrender.

The application was considered afresh and bail was refused.

1. Jurisdiction and starting point. The High Court’s jurisdiction was to consider bail afresh. Because the warrant was a conviction warrant, there was no presumption in favour of granting bail.
2. Risk assessment. The court assessed objectively all the circumstances, including the points advanced for and against bail. The issue was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released on the proposed conditions.
3. Relevant considerations. The likely remaining sentence of about three years was a substantial period of custody and created a strong incentive to avoid surrender. For the purposes of risk assessment, the court was entitled to proceed on the premise that there was strong evidence that the applicant had come to the United Kingdom as a fugitive, while making no final findings of fact and without expressing a view on the merits of the extradition proceedings.
4. The relocation of the family from Romania to the United Kingdom, including the applicant’s own crossing of borders while leaving the Romanian proceedings behind, materially increased the assessed risk. The applicant might also perceive that he had no strong prospect of resisting extradition and of avoiding a relatively imminent return to Romania.
5. The proposed security, electronically monitored curfew, travel restrictions, residence requirement and reporting requirement were relevant safeguards. They did not, however, eliminate the substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender. The court reached the same conclusion as the two district judges, without reviewing their decisions.

The extradition hearing was listed for December 2021, and the court emphasised that its risk assessment was not intended to influence the judge determining the substantive extradition issues.

Bail had previously been refused in the magistrates’ court:

• District Judge Brennan: bail refused in July 2021.
• District Judge Baraitser: bail refused in August 2021.
• High Court (Administrative Court): bail considered afresh and refused.