Amitkumar Kanubhai Patel v Government of the United States of America

In an extradition accusation case, bail begins with a presumption in favour of release. That presumption is displaced where, assessing all the circumstances objectively, there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant would fail to surrender. Proposed conditions must be assessed for their ability to address the actual risks. Relevant considerations may include the seriousness of the allegation and likely penalty, the defendant’s perceived prospects in the extradition proceedings, the existence of an accessible third country, ties to that country, and the strength of the defendant’s links to the United Kingdom. The court must assess risk without provisionally deciding the merits of pending appeal grounds or issues reserved for the trial court.

The applicant sought bail in extradition proceedings after bail had been refused in the magistrates court. He was wanted by the United States to face an allegation substantially involving international parental kidnapping. He denied criminal wrongdoing and relied on proposed conditions, including residence with his sister, financial security, reporting, an electronically monitored curfew, and surrender and retention of travel documents.

He also relied on his engagement with the extradition and family proceedings in the United Kingdom, and on findings in the Family Division which he said supported his account of events concerning the removal of his child to India. The central question was whether the presumption in favour of bail had been rebutted by substantial grounds for believing that he would fail to surrender, notwithstanding the proposed conditions.

1. Bail jurisdiction and starting point. The court considered the question of bail afresh. Since this was an accusation case, there was a presumption in favour of granting bail.
2. Risk of failure to surrender. The presumption was displaced because, taking all the circumstances objectively, there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released. The assessment did not require any provisional view on the merits of grounds of appeal from the District Judge’s extradition decision.
3. Relevant circumstances. The allegation was serious and carried an accompanying serious penal consequence, giving the applicant a strong incentive to avoid the proceedings. The extradition proceedings had so far been unsuccessful for him, and he might perceive himself as having limited prospects of overturning the adverse forum ruling. Those matters were relevant to risk, without determining whether an appeal would succeed.
4. Third-country risk. India was an obvious third country. The applicant had previously lived there with his son, and his parents and the child’s grandparents were there. He might perceive a better opportunity to resist extradition from India and reunite with his son. Nothing in the proposed arrangements necessarily anchored him to that location or to the United Kingdom.
5. Effect of family findings. The family-court findings concerning events in 2017 would not bind United States courts. They also did not, on their face, answer the allegations concerning conduct after a United States court order made on 16 October 2018. Those matters therefore did not materially allay the risk.
6. United Kingdom links and outcome. The applicant’s links to the United Kingdom were limited. His proposed conditions did not provide sufficient anchoring force to address the concerns. Bail was refused.

• Magistrates court: Bail was refused.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The bail question was considered afresh and bail was refused.