Jalil v Court of Appeal of Thessaloniki (Greece)

A conviction warrant carries no right to bail. Bail may nevertheless be refused where the seriousness of the offence, the sentence imposed, the absence of a determined appeal and the risk of failing to surrender justify refusal. Untested expert evidence about a potentially shorter sentence is a matter for the tribunal determining the appeal or retrial, rather than the court deciding bail. A bail position may be reviewed after the substantive proceedings have been considered.

The applicant sought bail while proceedings concerning a Greek conviction warrant were pending before Westminster Magistrates’ Court. The Greek sentence exceeded ten years, and the applicant had not yet had his appeal. He relied on community ties, poor health and expert evidence suggesting that a shorter sentence might be imposed on appeal or retrial. The central issue was whether the applicant should be admitted to bail pending the magistrates’ court proceedings.

1. Application refused. The court refused bail because the matter concerned a conviction warrant to which no right to bail attached.
2. The court nevertheless considered the relevant circumstances. The seriousness of the offence, the sentence imposed, the fact that the applicant had not yet had his appeal, and the continuing risk that he would fail to surrender to custody weighed against release.
3. The applicant’s community ties and poor health were noted but did not overcome that risk.
4. The Greek legal expert’s evidence suggested that the applicant might receive a much shorter sentence on appeal or retrial. That evidence had not been tested. Its merits were for the district judge hearing the appeal in the magistrates’ court, together with the other matters requiring factual determination.
5. The position could be reviewed after Westminster Magistrates’ Court had considered the case substantively.