Srinivasan Solaraj v Investigating Judge, Prosecutor General’s Office Lisbon, Portugal

In an extradition arrest-warrant case, the presumption in favour of bail is displaced where there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender. A court considering risk may take the prosecution allegations at their highest for that limited purpose. It must not determine disputed facts, criminal guilt or the substantive merits of extradition. Relevant considerations include the seriousness of the alleged offences and possible sentence, the incentive to abscond, the applicant’s resources and associates, international links and travel, and the adequacy of proposed conditions. A further application for bail is not automatically barred: the court must consider case-specifically whether repeated applications are improper or abusive.

The applicant faced extradition proceedings to Portugal in relation to allegations of aggravated robbery and kidnapping. Bail had previously been refused by Dove J on 12 August 2025 and by Sweeting J on 23 October 2025. A further bail application was made after the Westminster Magistrates’ Court had considered that there had been a change in circumstances, although it too refused bail.

The Administrative Court considered whether it could assess bail afresh and, if so, whether the applicant had displaced the risk of failing to surrender through the proposed conditions. The applicant disputed the Portuguese allegations and relied on his UK ties, health, lack of convictions, passport seizure, sureties and other safeguards.

1. Jurisdiction to consider bail afresh. There was no jurisdictional bar to a further application before a different High Court judge. The court had to assess on a case-specific basis whether repeated attempts to obtain extradition bail were improper or abusive. Applying the approach in Ratajeski v Poland [2024] EWHC 1359 (Admin), the present application was neither improper nor abusive.
2. Scope of the bail assessment. The court was assessing risk, not deciding disputed facts, criminal guilt or any substantive issue for the extradition hearing. For that purpose, it was appropriate to proceed on the basis of the Portuguese prosecution case as described by the Portuguese authorities.
3. Risk of failure to surrender. The court considered three connected matters: the prospect of a Portuguese trial and significant custodial sentences; the implications of allegations involving serious planned criminality, wealth, associates and transnational activity; and the applicant’s personal circumstances, resources, associates, international links and travel. The potential sentence and the perceived fragility of resisting extradition through due process created a strong incentive to abscond.
4. The applicant’s UK residence, family ties, good character, health, forthcoming extradition hearing, seized passports, proposed reporting and electronic-monitoring conditions, sureties, cash security and proposed notification to the Indian High Commission did not adequately allay the concerns. There were substantial grounds for believing that he would fail to surrender. The presumption in favour of bail was decisively displaced.
5. Order. Bail was refused. There was no order as to costs, save for detailed assessment of the applicant’s publicly funded costs.

The judgment records earlier refusals of extradition bail in the same proceedings:

• High Court (Administrative Court): Dove J refused bail on 12 August 2025: [2025] EWHC 2566 (Admin).
• High Court (Administrative Court): Sweeting J refused bail on 23 October 2025; the reasons were noted but not contained in a published judgment.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 12 February 2026, the District Judge considered there had been a change in circumstances, reconsidered bail afresh and refused it.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Fordham J considered the application afresh and refused bail.