JAMES PATRICK GERALD FLYNN v THE HIGH COURT, REPUBLIC OF IRELAND

On a renewed application for bail in extradition proceedings, the court must decide whether there has been a material change in circumstances and must reassess the risk of failure to surrender. Increased security and surety offers do not necessarily displace serious concerns arising from the alleged offending, the likely sentence, the applicant’s connections with persons implicated in the offences, and his mobility. In a category 1 case, the court need not determine whether the requesting state’s allegation is true. It is sufficient that the requesting authorities assert the relevant conduct. Where the risk of absconding remains too great, the statutory presumption in favour of bail is displaced.

James Flynn applied to the Administrative Court for bail under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 while resisting his surrender to Ireland under an arrest warrant issued by the Irish High Court and certified by the National Crime Agency.

Bail had previously been refused by Fordham J on 30 July 2021, in a judgment reported at [2021] EWHC 2188 (Admin), and subsequently by Westminster Magistrates’ Court. The extradition hearing had been adjourned and relisted. Mr Flynn relied on increased security and surety offers, an English bail address, and further information concerning his alleged false alibi and cooperation with investigators. The central issue was whether those matters materially changed the previous assessment of the risk that he would fail to surrender.

1. The application for bail was refused. The court reached the same conclusion as Fordham J and District Judge Godfrey: the risk of failure to surrender remained too great.

2. The increased security, higher surety offers and proposed English bail address did not materially alter the position. The alleged robbery involved the killing of a police officer and the holding of another officer at gunpoint. A very substantial custodial sentence would be inevitable if Mr Flynn were convicted.

3. The court did not determine whether Mr Flynn had in fact provided false information in his 2013 statement. In a category 1 case, it was sufficient for present purposes that the Irish authorities maintained that he had done so. His having repeated the account to investigators did not reduce the concern that it was false.

4. Serious concerns also arose from Mr Flynn’s travel to the United States shortly after giving the statement, his association with persons said to have been involved in the offences, his United States citizenship and his ability to travel between jurisdictions. Later travel to the Republic of Ireland did not allay those concerns because it would not necessarily have brought him to the attention of the Irish authorities.

5. Family ties and the substantial security offered did not reduce the risk to an acceptable level. No weight was placed on alleged vulnerability because the proposed medical evidence was unavailable. The presumption in favour of bail under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 was therefore displaced.

• Administrative Court: Fordham J refused bail on 30 July 2021; the decision is reported at [2021] EWHC 2188 (Admin).
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: bail was refused again on 6 December 2021.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the renewed application was refused.