ISA ERTEM v BELGIUM

On an application for bail by a person sought under an accusation warrant, the presumption in favour of bail may be displaced where there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender.

The assessment is fact-sensitive. Relevant considerations include the seriousness of the alleged offence and the likely custodial sentence, any features of the alleged conduct that may facilitate absconding, foreign connections and travel opportunities, the availability of medical care abroad, and the adequacy of proposed security. Health concerns and strong family ties must be weighed, but will not necessarily overcome a substantial risk of absconding.

Isa Ertem applied under section 22(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 for bail pending extradition proceedings. Belgium sought his extradition to stand trial on a people-trafficking charge carrying a maximum sentence understood to be 10 years, rising to 15 years in the presence of aggravating factors.

Following his arrest, two bail applications before Westminster Magistrates’ Court had been refused. The applicant relied on his good character, lack of previous convictions, health conditions, strong family ties in the United Kingdom and proposed security of £40,000. The central issue was whether substantial grounds existed for believing that he would fail to surrender if released.

1. The application for bail was refused. Although the applicant benefited from a presumption in favour of bail because he was sought on an accusation warrant, the court was satisfied that substantial grounds existed for believing that he would fail to surrender.

2. The seriousness of the alleged people-trafficking offence and the possibility of a substantial custodial sentence created a powerful incentive to abscond. The court took the applicant’s evidence that the likely sentence might be one to three years at its highest, but that did not remove the risk.

3. The nature of the alleged offence, involving the illicit transfer of people across borders and normally the use of false documents, provided significant cause for concern that the applicant would possess the means to abscond.

4. The applicant’s Turkish origin and substantial connections with Turkey, together with his possession of a one-way ticket to Turkey when arrested, created a substantial opportunity to abscond. The court accepted that the ticket was said to relate to medical treatment for his wife, but remained concerned about the connection.

5. The applicant’s medical conditions, including the consequences of a previous splenectomy and the need for regular medication, were carefully considered. The presumption that United Kingdom prisons would have adequate arrangements to deal with those conditions meant that his health did not sufficiently reduce the risk. The availability of medical treatment in Turkey outweighed the argument that his health would make absconding less likely.

6. The proposed security, although substantial and supported by persons with confidence in the applicant, was insufficient on the facts to displace the grounds for believing that he might fail to surrender.

The judgment records two earlier bail applications before Westminster Magistrates’ Court following the applicant’s arrest. District Judge Zani refused bail on 24 February 2022, and District Judge Godfrey refused a further application on 3 March 2022 despite proposed security of £40,000. The present application was refused by the High Court.