Syed v Government of Switzerland

In an accusation case, the presumption of bail applies, but the court must consider afresh whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender. Bail may be refused despite stringent proposed conditions where the applicant has significant international connections, access to a country that would not extradite him, weak or temporary ties to the United Kingdom, and a strong incentive to avoid extradition. The seriousness of the alleged offending is not itself a ground for refusing bail, but may materially strengthen the flight-risk assessment. The court should not conduct a detailed examination of the merits of an anticipated extradition appeal on a bail application.

The applicant sought bail after a District Judge, on 4 July 2023, sent the extradition case to the Secretary of State under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. Switzerland sought his extradition to stand trial for alleged large-scale advance fee fraud. The District Judge discharged him on two allegations for lack of dual criminality but sent the case forward on 21 allegations.

The central issue was whether, notwithstanding proposed residence, electronic curfew, financial security and travel restrictions, there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender.

1. The application was dismissed. Because this was an accusation case, the presumption of bail applied. The High Court considered the matter afresh.

2. The relevant question was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender to custody. The proposed conditions were relevant but did not remove that risk.

3. The applicant’s international connections were significant. He was a Turkish national, had links with India and Bahrain, and accepted that a Turkish passport gave access to more countries. The fact that Turkey would not extradite its citizens, subject to obligations arising from the ICC, was a factor carrying considerable weight.

4. By contrast, the applicant’s ties to the United Kingdom were shallow. He had no demonstrated settled status, his family had Turkish nationality, and the proposed bail accommodation was short-term. These matters reduced the protective force of his United Kingdom connections.

5. The alleged offending was serious, sophisticated and carried a maximum sentence of 10 years. Seriousness was not itself a ground for refusing bail, but it provided a strong incentive to abscond. The approaching limitation period provided an additional incentive to avoid extradition.

6. The applicant’s previous involvement in Bahraini proceedings was not a useful comparison because he had not been subject to bail conditions there while facing extradition. Nor was a detailed assessment of the extradition appeal appropriate. Nothing identified in the District Judge’s reasoning was so egregiously wrong, or otherwise sufficiently weighty, as to outweigh the factors against bail.

The judgment records that the applicant had been refused bail on earlier occasions and that the District Judge sent the extradition case to the Secretary of State on 4 July 2023. The present decision concerned the High Court bail application after that decision.