Linas Trijonis v Klaipeda Circuit Court, Republic of Lithuania

In extradition proceedings arising from a conviction European Arrest Warrant, there is no presumption in favour of bail. The court must consider bail afresh and ask whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released on the proposed conditions. The assessment is objective and fact-sensitive. Seriousness of the index offence, the sentence likely to be served, the imminence of extradition proceedings, evidence of previous fugitivity and misleading conduct may outweigh compelling family and welfare considerations. Financial security and stringent conditions, including electronic monitoring, do not necessarily dispel the risk.

The applicant sought bail pending extradition to Lithuania under a European Arrest Warrant issued following his conviction for a shooting. He faced a three-year custodial sentence, subject to credit for time spent on remand. His application relied heavily on the premature birth and serious medical condition of his child, and on the resulting impact on his long-standing partner.

The court noted that bail had previously been refused in the magistrates’ court, but that its jurisdiction was to determine the issue afresh rather than conduct a supervisory review. The central question was whether release on stringent proposed conditions would nevertheless create substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender.

1. Bail test. The application was refused. Because the case arose from a conviction European Arrest Warrant, there was no presumption in favour of bail. The court’s task was to assess the application afresh and determine whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released on conditional bail.
2. Objective assessment of risk. The assessment had to be made objectively and through the prism of the risk of failure to surrender. The court considered the seriousness of the shooting, the three-year custodial sentence facing the applicant, the imminent extradition hearing and the possibility that he would shortly be removed to Lithuania to serve the sentence.
3. Previous fugitivity. Without finally determining an issue reserved for the extradition proceedings, the court proceeded on the evidenced basis that the applicant had returned to the United Kingdom after conviction and an unsuccessful appeal in circumstances giving rise to substantial grounds for considering that he had acted as a fugitive. That materially increased the risk.
4. Misleading conduct. The applicant’s use of a false name when questioned by a plain-clothes police officer at arrest, together with his explanation, gave rise to serious concerns relevant to the objective risk assessment.
5. Family circumstances and conditions. The premature birth and grave illness of the child, the partner’s trauma, their long relationship and the proposed £50,000 security were given anxious consideration. They did not provide an anchoring effect sufficient to allay the identified risks. The proposed conditions, including GPS monitoring, did not rebut the starting position.
6. The Article 8 ECHR considerations were acknowledged but did not alter the bail conclusion. Bail was refused.

The judgment records that bail had previously been refused in the magistrates’ court. The Administrative Court considered the bail application afresh and did not exercise a supervisory review over those earlier refusals.