The Government of Israel v Solomon Abramov

On a bail appeal under Bail (Amendment) Act 1993, the court must consider bail afresh by way of rehearing. In an accusation case, the starting point is a presumption in favour of bail. That presumption is displaced where there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant would fail to surrender and the proposed conditions do not adequately address the risk.

Risk must be assessed on all the evidence and submissions. Relevant considerations may include deliberate departure after arrest or investigation, concealment of a passport, statements indicating a resolve to avoid extradition, the perceived imminence of extradition, and the limited anchoring effect of financial security. The court may reach a different assessment from the judge below without making specific findings of fact.

The Government of Israel appealed against a decision of District Judge Zani granting Solomon Abramov conditional bail pending extradition proceedings. Abramov was wanted to stand trial in Israel on four allegations of sexual touching involving two individuals, one aged 15.

The conditions included residence with a community supporter, electronic curfew, reporting, surrender of his passport, restrictions on international travel and £20,000 security. The appeal required the Administrative Court to reconsider bail afresh and determine whether the presumption in favour of bail had been displaced by a substantial risk of failure to surrender.

1. Rehearing and legal starting point. The court considered the question of bail afresh by way of rehearing under section 1(9) of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993. This was an accusation case, approached on the basis of a presumption in favour of bail. The court assessed risk on the materials and submissions before it, rather than making specific findings of fact.
2. Risk of failure to surrender. The presumption was displaced because there were substantial grounds for believing that Abramov would fail to surrender. His departure from Israel shortly after arrest, house arrest and release was assessed as a strong indication that he had chosen to remain outside Israel in light of the criminal charges. His later travel to and residence in the United Kingdom reinforced that assessment.
3. The court attached significant weight to his refusal, when arrested, to disclose the location of his passport. That conduct was viewed as knowing obstruction and evasion, consistent with an intention to preserve the ability to leave the United Kingdom. His statements that he would not return to Israel indicated a strong resolve to avoid extradition, rather than merely a refusal to consent to it.
4. The imminence of the extradition hearing, and the respondent’s perception that resistance to extradition might be fragile and short-lived, increased the risk. The court made no assessment of the objective merits of any proposed resistance to extradition.
5. Conditions. The £20,000 security, community support and reputational ties were genuine and significant. They nevertheless had limited anchoring effect when balanced against the perceived consequences and imminence of extradition and the other evidence of evasion. The proposed conditions therefore did not allay the concerns.
6. The appeal was allowed and the grant of conditional bail was overturned.

• Westminster Magistrates Court: District Judge Zani granted conditional bail on 10 May 2024. No citation is stated in the judgment.
• High Court (Administrative Court): On a rehearing under section 1(9) of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993, Fordham J allowed the appeal and overturned the grant of conditional bail.