Court of First Instance West Flanders, Bruges, Belgium v Caio Marchesani

On an appeal against the grant of bail in extradition proceedings, the High Court proceeds de novo and makes its own decision on the evidence. It need not identify an error in the district judge’s approach.

Where the warrant is an accusation warrant, bail is presumptively available, but the requesting judicial authority must show that no conditions can adequately secure surrender. The court must assess the risk cumulatively, including the person’s resources, international connections, ties to the United Kingdom, the seriousness and consequences of the allegations, and the practical effectiveness of proposed conditions. A substantial risk of absconding may justify custody even where the maximum sentence is relatively low.

The Court of First Instance West Flanders, Bruges, appealed under section 1(1A) of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993 against a district judge’s decision to grant Caio Marchesani conditional bail in extradition proceedings.

The extradition warrant alleged involvement in a criminal organisation connected with the importation of cocaine and the handling of criminal proceeds. The appeal concerned whether stringent conditions, including substantial security, electronic monitoring and surrender of travel documents, could adequately address the risk that Marchesani would abscond.

1. The appeal was allowed and Marchesani was remanded in custody. The matter was before the High Court de novo. Under section 1(9) of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993, the court was required to reach its own decision rather than review the district judge for error: Tighe v Ireland [2013] EWHC 3313 (Admin).

2. The warrant was an accusation warrant. Bail was therefore presumptively available, but the appellant had to show that no conditions could ensure surrender. The central question was whether the risk of absconding could be managed by conditions.

3. The risk had to be assessed cumulatively. Relevant considerations included the alleged connection with a sophisticated and well-resourced criminal organisation, uncertainty about the respondent’s accessible funds, international connections and possible destinations, the difficulty of securing extradition from some jurisdictions, and the limited strength of his United Kingdom ties.

4. The relatively low maximum sentence did not determine the issue. Conviction could have serious business and professional consequences, further investigation could increase the seriousness of the case, and confiscation or forfeiture remained possible. Those matters materially increased the incentive to abscond.

5. Although concerns about the source of the security money had been dispelled and the proposed conditions were stringent, the overall risk remained too high. No available conditions could properly secure surrender.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal against the district judge’s grant of conditional bail on 7 July 2023. The respondent remained in custody.