Gezim Cela v Government of Albania

In an extradition bail application, the court may refuse conditional bail where there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released. The inquiry is a risk assessment rather than a determination of disputed facts. The court must assess the whole evidential picture, including incentives to abscond, previous evasion or elusiveness, mobility, the reliability of disclosed ties and the practical force of proposed conditions. Residence requirements, curfews, reporting, travel restrictions and third-party security will not suffice where they do not provide reliable anchoring features capable of allaying the assessed risk.

The applicant sought conditional bail pending extradition proceedings in Westminster Magistrates’ Court and an outstanding asylum appeal. He proposed residence requirements, an electronically monitored nightly curfew, reporting, travel and document restrictions, and £24,000 in security from three friends. The respondent relied on evidence concerning the Albanian sentence, alleged earlier flight, the applicant’s elusiveness in the UK, false identity details, mobility and lack of stable ties. The central issue was whether release would create a substantial risk that the applicant would fail to surrender.

Conditional bail was refused. Fordham J concluded that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender if released, and that the proposed conditions, or any other conditions available to the court, would not allay that concern.

1. The decision involved an assessment of present risk. The judge had heard no oral evidence and made no findings of fact. Matters disputed by the applicant, including his account of leaving Albania, could be tested at the forthcoming extradition hearing but remained relevant to the risk assessment on the evidence then available.
2. The applicant faced a strong incentive to avoid serving the ten-year Albanian sentence. Documentary evidence supported the contention that he had left Albania while wanted in connection with the same matters and despite a remand order prohibiting departure. The court treated the possibility of earlier evasion as relevant without resolving the ultimate factual dispute.
3. The evidence of prolonged elusiveness in the UK materially increased the risk. It included the absence of a financial and documentary footprint, a false address used in an asylum application, unexplained cash, no surrendered identity documents, and the use of a false name when arrested in 2022. The associated discovery of a knife, cocaine wraps and another person’s bank card added to the concern.
4. The applicant’s mobility, links to several UK locations and wide network of associates did not establish a stable base. The judge could not be confident that the true network had been disclosed or that the applicant’s whereabouts would remain known.
5. The proposed security did not provide reliable anchoring features. Although one friend’s single caution disclosed no further criminal-record concern, there was no strong evidence of the depth of the applicant’s ties and no adequate explanation of the friends’ ability or reasons to provide the sums. The overall risk was clear-cut, and bail was refused.

not stated in the judgment.