Stanyo Marinov v Bulgarian Judicial Authority

In conviction-based extradition proceedings, there is no presumption in favour of bail. The court must assess afresh whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the requested person would fail to surrender. The assessment is fact-sensitive and may include the custodial sentence, the nature of the offending, recent international mobility, possible fugitivity, and the strength of family or medical ties. The court may rely on a serious concern that the person left the requesting state to avoid criminal responsibility, without making a definitive finding that the person was a fugitive. Bail conditions do not require granting bail where the overall risk remains substantial.

The applicant was wanted for extradition to Bulgaria under a conviction Extradition Arrest Warrant. He faced an eight-year custodial sentence for fraud and money laundering offences. The magistrates’ court had most recently refused bail on 11 November 2021. The applicant relied on family ties in the United Kingdom, serious visual impairment, medical conditions, an extant appeal against the extradition order, and proposed bail conditions. The central issue was whether substantial grounds existed for believing that he would fail to surrender if released.

1. Bail refused. The applicant faced conviction-based extradition proceedings and therefore no presumption in favour of bail. The eight-year sentence and the dishonest nature of the offending provided a substantial incentive to avoid surrender.
2. The court assessed the merits of bail afresh. Residence with relatives in the United Kingdom and the applicant’s physical and medical conditions did not provide a sufficient anchoring effect.
3. It was not appropriate to proceed on the basis that the applicant was definitively a fugitive, because the extradition judge had made no finding on that issue. It was nevertheless appropriate to assess the risk on the basis of a very serious concern that he had left Bulgaria to avoid responsibility for the relevant criminal proceedings.
4. The applicant’s movement from Bulgaria to Germany, followed by travel to the United Kingdom more than three months later, indicated mobility and supported the concern that he had resolved to avoid the Bulgarian criminal process if possible.
5. The applicant’s pending appeal concerned oppression on health grounds under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 and alleged risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. Those grounds involved a high threshold and were contingent on the absence of adequate assurances. The court did not determine their viability, but the recent extradition decision and the nature of the grounds could contribute to the risk assessment.
6. Considering all the circumstances, including the proposed £10,000 security, electronic curfew and travel restrictions, substantial grounds remained for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender. Bail was refused.

• Magistrates’ court: Bail was refused, most recently by District Judge Clarke on 11 November 2021.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The application for bail was reconsidered afresh and refused.