Beniamin Matias v Ghitulete Bainc Timisoara District (Romania)

In a conviction-extradition warrant case, there is no presumption in favour of bail. The court must consider the bail question afresh and decide whether substantial grounds exist for believing that the applicant will fail to surrender. Relevant matters include an evidenced pattern of offending or disregard for legal requirements, breaches of court orders, failures to attend court, fugitivity, mobility, the incentive created by outstanding custody, family ties and proposed conditions. Strong family connections and stringent conditions may be insufficient where the overall risk remains substantial. The assessment is fact-sensitive and must consider the proposed conditions and all relevant circumstances in combination.

The applicant sought bail pending an extradition hearing concerning a Romanian conviction warrant. Bail had previously been refused by district judges on 29 September and 6 October 2021. The applicant relied on his long residence and family ties in the United Kingdom, his period on remand, proposed bail conditions and the possibility of transferring the Romanian sentence. The respondent opposed bail on the basis that substantial grounds existed for believing that he would fail to surrender. The central issue was whether bail should be granted following a fresh assessment.

1. Bail refused. The application concerned a conviction extradition arrest warrant. There was therefore no presumption in favour of bail. Under Criminal Justice Act 1967, section 22 (1A), the court considered the question afresh, independently of the reasons given by the magistrates’ court.
2. The court had to determine whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, if released, the applicant would fail to surrender. The assessment required consideration of all the material and the proposed conditions.
3. Material factors pointing towards risk included the applicant’s apparent pattern of disregarding legal requirements, including repeated driving offences; his recent disregard of a disqualification order; repeated driving while disqualified; failures to attend court; and the respondent’s claim that he was a fugitive in relation to the Romanian offending. The court could treat the failures to attend as relevant to risk even though they had not been pursued as proved offences.
4. The applicant’s outstanding custody could operate in two ways. It was a burden on him and his family, but it could also provide an incentive to avoid surrender. His mobility, including driving in Romania, Germany and different parts of the United Kingdom, was also relevant.
5. The court accepted that the applicant’s family ties, the proposed residence, electronic curfew, reporting, passport surrender, travel restrictions, constant contactability and substantial security were significant. They did not, however, provide a sufficient anchoring effect in the circumstances. Even without relying on fugitivity, the court would have refused bail.
6. The court concluded that substantial grounds existed for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender on the proposed conditions. Bail was refused.

The judgment records that bail had previously been refused in the magistrates’ court:

• District Judge Griffiths refused bail on 29 September 2021.
• District Judge Snow refused bail on 6 October 2021.
• High Court (Administrative Court) reconsidered the bail question afresh and refused bail.