Kameel Shehadi v German Judicial Authority

On an application to vary extradition bail, the court must consider afresh whether the existing conditions remain necessary and appropriate. A temporary removal of electronic monitoring for medical treatment does not ordinarily justify its open-ended removal after the medical need has ended. Where a nightly curfew is justified, electronic monitoring and tagging may be necessary to ensure its most effective and enforceable operation, particularly where the person has substantial international links, mobility and means. A less intrusive doorstep-checking arrangement may leave monitoring and enforcement blind spots.

The appellant was granted bail in an accusation case under an extradition arrest warrant concerning alleged organised online trading fraud and money laundering in Germany. The bail package included a £300,000 security, a nightly curfew and electronic monitoring by tag.

District judges temporarily removed the tag to permit knee surgery and recovery. The tag was later reattached, after a period during which the appellant complied with the curfew and made no attempt to abscond. The appellant sought a further variation removing the tag while retaining the curfew, enforced by doorstep checks. The issue was whether the electronic monitoring condition remained necessary and justified under the court’s jurisdiction under section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.

1. Application refused. The court considered afresh the variation of the extradition bail conditions and reached the same conclusion as District Judge Minhas: the requested variation should not be made.
2. The original bail package, including the tag and electronic monitoring, had been supported by a compelling and evidenced case for a necessary and appropriate protective package with effective enforcement. The temporary removal of the tag had a clear and limited rationale: it enabled necessary knee surgery and facilitated recovery while the appellant was physically impaired.
3. The appellant’s compliance during the period without electronic monitoring was relevant but did not establish that the monitoring condition had ceased to be necessary. The medical justification for the temporary variation had ended, and there was no continuing physical compromise or incapacity requiring removal of the tag.
4. The appellant accepted that the nightly curfew, requiring him to remain at home between 10 pm and 3 am, remained justified even if enforced by doorstep checks. Once that was accepted, electronic monitoring and tagging were justified as the most effective means of enforcing the curfew.
5. Doorstep enforcement could leave blind spots in monitoring and enforcement. In the circumstances, removing the tag on an open-ended basis would remove an important and necessary layer of the protective conditions, having regard to the appellant’s mobility, international links and substantial means.

The application to vary the conditions was refused.

• District Judge Minhas: granted and maintained extradition bail on conditions including a curfew and electronic monitoring.
• District Judge Tempia and District Judge Clarke: temporarily varied the conditions on 19 and 28 April 2023 to remove the tag to facilitate surgery.
• District Judge Law: continued the removal during the appellant’s recovery.
• High Court (Administrative Court): on 22 June 2023, considered the variation afresh and refused the application.