[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Crown Prosecution Service v Patel [2010] EWHC 1221 (Admin) (13 May 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/1221.html Cite as: [2010] EWHC 1221 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		13 May 2010

1. LORD JUSTICE ELIAS: This is an appeal brought by the Government of India against the grant of bail by District Judge Wickham two days ago. The prosecution has come back to this court very speedily, as they have to do, seeking to contend that the judge was wrong to grant bail in this case. I should say that the bail is subject to a whole series of conditions, about which there is no complaint. They are the standard conditions imposed in cases of this kind: he has had to give up his passport; he must reside in his house; he must not leave Lancashire save exceptionally to see solicitors or by consent; he has also entered into a security of £50,000, or is required to, and others have or are providing sureties for £200,000.
2. The basis of the appeal is this. It is alleged that the defendant has committed extremely serious offences in India back in 1993. He was allegedly involved in terrorist offences which led to explosions causing the deaths of many people. Coupled with that is the fact that he absconded from India shortly after the criminal offences occurred and, it is alleged, that he assisted, in ways which are not entirely clear, in procuring, or providing financial assistance to procure, false travel documents for others who were involved in the conspiracy of which he was alleged to have been part, and he encouraged another co-conspirator to flee from India. In the normal way, these would be very powerful grounds for refusing bail. The sentence which will be imposed if ultimately the defendant is extradited and found guilty in India will be, no doubt, very lengthy, and there are obvious reasons why somebody in those circumstances may wish to take steps to avoid extradition back to India to face trial. I should say that the defendant very strongly denies all these allegations and considers that he has strong grounds for resisting the extradition request that has been made by the Government of India.
3. The real issue in this case, it seems to me, is that the defendant has been here now since 1996. He has lived an apparently unblemished life in that time in a house in Bolton. He has been known to the authorities throughout, because until 2004 he had to report to the police once a month, that was until he received leave to remain in the UK. We have been shown his application for asylum, which was made in July 1996, where he told the British authorities that he was being accused of these serious offences but which he denied. And we have been shown today a letter -- which I should say has only been shown to Mr Knowles, counsel for the Indian Government, today -- but an apparently genuine letter, with an indication that it had been sent by International Registered Mail to the Assistant Police Commissioner in the Gujarati state where these offences are alleged to have occurred, in which the solicitors for the defendant requested information as to whether or not their client was wanted on warrant and said they wanted a copy of the arrest warrant. Mr Knowles rightly points out that we do not necessarily know whether that letter was received or whether any action was taken with respect to it. What we do know, however, is that we have somebody who has now been in this country, living quite openly for 14 years and, it is accepted, that the lapse of time point is one which has been alerted to the Indian Government, both in respect of the extradition application but also in respect of the bail application. Mr Knowles properly accepts that the onus, of course, is on the Indian Government to show why the defendant should be detained rather than be subject to bail with potentially rigorous conditions. He accepts that he does not know why the Indian Government has not apparently taken steps much earlier to try to seek the extradition of this defendant. It appears that some of his co-accused made statements shortly after the offences occurred and there appears to be no explanation as to why steps have suddenly been taken at this stage. There may be an explanation but it has not been shown to us and the Government of India has had ample opportunity to explain what steps were taken and why they have been unsuccessful.
4. What is apparent is that the British authorities have been well aware of the presence of the defendant here and, indeed, as I say he has not sought to conceal from them the fact that he has been accused of these offences. If the letter was received by the Assistant Police Commissioner in Gujarat State, that would be an even more powerful basis for saying that the Indian authorities have been dilatory in seeking to take the necessary steps to secure extradition.
5. Bearing these facts in mind, we think it would be disproportionate to require this defendant to remain in custody pending the outcome of the extradition proceedings. We do bear in mind that he has very strong roots now in the UK; Bolton is where his family and friends are and there must be powerful reasons why he would not, in any event, have anywhere very appropriate to go, even if he were minded to seek to evade extradition in this case. Mr Fitzgerald QC who acts for him, as I say, submits that he considers he has very powerful reasons in any event to resist that application.
6. We have decided, in the circumstances, we should refuse this application. Of course, as Mr Knowles recognises, if there is fresh evidence which casts a different light on the matter, then there can be a renewed application. But we do not think, in the circumstances, that it would be appropriate to accede to this appeal. I understand that everyone is content that the bail should continue on the current conditions. There is no fresh conditions requested or anything of that kind. So the bail will simply continue on the basis of the conditions which were imposed by the district judge.
7. The appeal is dismissed. Thank you both very much.