George Florin Petrica v District Court of Bucharest, Romania

In a conviction-warrant extradition case, bail is not subject to a presumption in favour of release. The court must assess afresh whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the requested person would fail to surrender if released, considering the evidence and proposed conditions as a whole. Relevant considerations may include the custodial sentence remaining, whether the person appears to have crossed borders to avoid serving it, the absence of an anchoring connection to the United Kingdom, mobility, relevant convictions or bail history, and the imminence of the extradition hearing. The assessment concerns risk and does not require definitive findings on disputed facts that are for another court.

The applicant sought bail pending extradition to Romania under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. Bail had previously been refused in the magistrates’ court. The applicant relied on the relatively limited period remaining to be served, proposed stringent conditions, a substantial security, a bail address, reporting, electronic monitoring and a curfew. The respondent relied on the remaining custodial period, the applicant’s apparent flight from Romania, disputed circumstances concerning his partner, his mobility and criminal history, and the imminent extradition hearing.

The central issue was whether, despite the proposed conditions, there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender.

1. Bail test. Because the warrant was a conviction warrant, there was no presumption in favour of bail. The High Court’s jurisdiction involved considering bail afresh.
2. Risk assessment. The question was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released, notwithstanding conditions which the court could impose. The court assessed risk on the material available and was not required to resolve every factual controversy where further information would not decisively affect the assessment.
3. Relevant considerations. The remaining custodial period was a powerful incentive to avoid surrender. The material provided an evidential basis for treating the applicant, for risk-assessment purposes, as having come to the United Kingdom as a fugitive. There was no sufficient anchoring connection to the United Kingdom. The applicant appeared mobile, had relevant historic Romanian convictions, and had a United Kingdom conviction mirroring one of the index offences. His previous police bail compliance was a factor in his favour but did not remove the wider concerns.
4. The extradition hearing was fixed for less than two weeks later and could properly be characterised as imminent. Taking all matters together, there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released. Bail was therefore refused.

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