Keith Howard v Judicial Court of Lille (France)

On a de novo application for bail pending an extradition hearing, the court must decide for itself whether conditions can secure attendance. Serious offending, a substantial potential sentence, international connections and credible evidence that the applicant previously breached bail conditions may together establish an unacceptable risk of failure to surrender. Security, family and community ties do not necessarily overcome that risk. The court should not determine the merits of substantive extradition challenges on a bail application. Those issues should be decided at the extradition hearing. A speculative future appellate decision cannot justify granting bail where the present evidence shows that no package of conditions is sufficient.

The applicant sought bail under section 22 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 after bail had been refused in the Magistrates' court on three earlier occasions. His extradition to France was sought so that he could serve the balance of a sentence imposed in Lille for involvement in the transfer of firearms, drugs and related equipment. The French authorities considered him a fugitive because he had not attended his trial or provided his new address after release on bail.

The application was de novo. The central issue was whether there were conditions capable of ensuring that the applicant would attend and remain for his extradition hearing.

1. Disposition. Bail was refused. The application was determined afresh, and the court was not reviewing the Magistrates' court for error.
2. The court accepted, for the purposes of the bail application, the French judicial authority's account that the applicant had left France in breach of his bail conditions to avoid proceedings. The applicant's offending was exceptionally serious, involving guns and drugs as part of an international crime group. Those matters created a substantial risk of failure to surrender. The risk was not sufficiently reduced by the offered security, family and community ties, or proposed conditions such as surrender of travel documents, curfew and reporting.
3. The court could not determine the merits of the applicant's proposed extradition objections, including arguments concerning passage of time, fugitive status, the division of prosecutions and trial in absence. Those matters were for determination at the extradition hearing before the District Judge at Westminster Magistrates' Court.
4. The applicant's reliance on the pending Supreme Court appeal in Merticariu was speculative. The possible effect of that appeal could not justify bail on the material presently available. If the extradition objections succeeded, the applicant would be discharged through the ordinary extradition process.
5. The decisive question was whether a package of conditions would ensure attendance throughout the extradition proceedings, whatever their duration. The court was not satisfied that any conditions could do so.