Where it was likely that an individual who challenged his extradition to Romania had been complicit in the production of a forged document purporting to come from the Romanian authorities, the court was entitled to refuse an application for conditional bail on the basis that it could be satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender to custody or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.
The court allowed Romania’s appeal against the grant of bail to a requested person who had been convicted and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for sexual offences against an 11-year-old girl whilst working as her dance teacher. The court was satisfied that there were substantial grounds to believe that the requested person would fail to surrender at the extradition hearing.
A district judge had not erred in rejecting the application of the Extradition Act 2003 s.12A bar to extradition, since even if a decision to try had not been taken, there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the requested person’s absence was not the sole reason for it.
The court had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal by a requesting state under the Extradition Act 2003 s.28(5) where an attempt to serve the appeal documents by email within the permitted seven day period had failed. Use of the general power in the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 r.50.17(6)(a) to extend time would be inconsistent with the clear words of the statute.
Due to a fugitive offender’s mental health needs and the risk of suicide if he were extradited, and in the context of an increased prison population in Turkey following an attempted coup and the lack of available healthcare, extradition to Turkey would breach the individual’s ECHR art.3 rights.