CO/13092/2010 CO/13090/2010 
Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 3592 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 

Thursday, 23rd December 2010
 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE HOLROYDE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between: 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF SUSAN PAMELA CLARKE AND ROGER CLARKE
Claimant

v 

GOVERNMENT OF NORWAY 
Defendant 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Malcolm Hawkes (instructed by Messrs Mark & Co Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Ms Adina Ezekiel (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	MR JUSTICE HOLROYDE:  These are applications for bail by Roger Clarke and Susan Clarke, who are subject to extradition proceedings by which the Government of Norway seeks to extradite them to that country.  
2.	In 2004, it is said that Mr and Mrs Clarke, then known as Mr and Mrs Button, were involved in a series of importations of cannabis into Norway and concomitant offences which in this country would be known as money laundering.  From the information before me, both Clarkes did indeed make admissions of their involvement to the Norwegian police and were co‑operative with the Norwegian authorities in identifying others involved in the drug smuggling.
3.	That led the Clarkes understandably to fear reprisals.  For a long time, the Clarkes were released on bail by the Norwegian authorities.  Among the conditions of their bail were requirements to surrender their passports and to remain in Oslo until the trial.  However, having been granted bail on those conditions, both Clarkes in fact left Norway and it would appear returned to this country.  It is said, and I accept, that for a time they maintained contact with the Norwegian police but that contact ceased at a period when the Norwegian authorities were moving towards commencing a prosecution of both defendants.  In the event, a trial was listed in Norway for September 2005, which the Clarkes failed to attend.
4.	It is said, and for present purposes I am willing to accept, that the principal reason for the Clarkes absconding from Norway was not an unwillingness to face up to their offending in that country but rather a fear of violent reprisals from those whom they had named.  It is further said, and again for present purposes I am willing to accept, that the same motivation lay behind their formal change of name from Button to Clarke whilst in this country.  However, even accepting that motivation, the resultant position was this: for the best part of five years the Clarkes were living in this country under names not known to the Norwegian authorities, all the time knowing that they were wanted in that country and would face prosecution if they were returned to that country.
5.	The extradition proceedings presently stand adjourned to a directions hearing in early January and a full hearing in late January.  Extradition is to be contested on grounds relating to the poor health of both Clarkes and their fear of violent reprisals if taken to Norway.
6.	In making this application to me, Mr Hawkes on behalf of the defendants realistically acknowledges that it is, substantially, a plea for a humane attitude to be adopted by the court to the circumstances of this case.  
7.	I have carefully considered all the circumstances that are before me, both in the written material and in the oral submissions.  I am very conscious that Mr Clarke is now 64, his wife now 62, and that both have their medical problems.  I am also very conscious that Mrs Clarke's mother, now in her 80s, is frail and in poor health and that, so long as the Clarkes remain in custody, any contact between mother and daughter will certainly be extremely difficult and may indeed be impossible.
8.	I do, however, have to have regard to other factors.  The maximum penalty in Norway for the offences with which the Clarkes are charged is one of 20 years' imprisonment.  Clearly, therefore, the relevant offences are viewed understandably seriously in Norway.  That of itself gives rise to a temptation for the Clarkes to abscond, if granted bail, with a view to avoiding their extradition.  
9.	Secondly, the emphasis placed on their fear of violent reprisals in Norway is at this stage of the proceedings a two‑edged sword for the Clarkes.  On the one hand, it provides an explanation for their past conduct.  On the other hand, it to my mind only adds to the temptation they would feel not to surrender to their bail if they were granted it.
10.	So far as the matters relating to ill health and the like are concerned, sympathetic though I am on a human level, I have to bear in mind that it was by the Clarkes' own act that they absented themselves from Norway some five years ago.  Thus grounds based upon worsening health over the last five years must be viewed against that background.
11.	Mr Hawkes submits, with force, that in practical terms the risk of absconding is greatly reduced by two considerations: firstly, the age and health of the Clarkes; secondly, the onerous package of conditions to which the Clarkes would be willing to submit.  I readily accept that the member of their extended family who has been kind enough to offer not only accommodation but also a security, which for her is a very substantial amount, is genuine in her motivation.
12.	I am, however, driven to the conclusion that there is here a substantial ground for believing that, if bail were granted to either or both of the Clarkes, they would fail to surrender.  I cannot leave out of account what they actually did when faced with a similar predicament in Norway in 2004.  They absconded then.  There is in my judgment a substantial ground for believing they would abscond again if granted bail and would fail to surrender to bail.  
13.	For those reasons both applications must be refused.