[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 >> Dewhurst v Crown Prosecution Service [2007] EWHC 309 (Admin) (16 February 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/309.html Cite as: [2007] EWHC 309 (Admin)

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

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

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		16 February 2007

1. MR JUSTICE KEITH: Mr Nott's witness statement tells me that the district judge at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court regarded as significant the fact that Mr Dewhurst could pay for his holiday, but could not put up any funds to secure his return to this country at the end of it. He has now put up the sum of £2,000 in cash, which is said to represent his family's savings. To that extent, there has been a change in circumstance since the district judge refused to vary the conditions on which Mr Dewhurst had been granted bail in the extradition proceedings.
2. At the heart of this application is assessing the risk that if Mr Dewhurst gets his passport back for a few weeks so that he can go to Goa on holiday with his wife, he will not come back. I have to assess how high that risk is. I note that any sentence he would have to serve in Spain would be a sentence served in a foreign country, away from his family and friends, and he would suffer more therefore in that respect than if he was serving a sentence in the United Kingdom. I also acknowledge that his record, although it contains no conviction for failing to comply with the terms of his bail or failing to surrender to his bail, shows a history of serious criminal activity.
3. But at the end of the day I have to say that I do assess the risk of his not returning to the United Kingdom as relatively low. First, he has lived in the same Council house for the last 15 years, and he has therefore grown strong local ties. Secondly, he is, I would have thought, unlikely to abandon his wife and children, to forfeit his family's savings, and to become a fugitive from justice for the rest of his life in order to avoid having to serve a sentence of imprisonment in Spain which could not exceed three years, in view of his time in custody before being released on bail.
4. I of course do not overlook the possibility that he might not return, but I regard the risk of that as too low to justify requiring him to give up a holiday which was booked and paid for long before the surrender of his passport was imposed as a condition of his bail. In that connection, it should be noted that he had his passport ever since he was released on bail in Spain until when the passport had to be surrendered following his arrest under the European Arrest Warrant, and despite that, he did not become a fugitive from justice then.
5. In these circumstances, I have been persuaded that it is appropriate to vary the terms of his bail in the extradition proceedings so that, on the deposit of £2,000 in cash, his passport may be returned to him, and he must surrender it again within 24 hours of his return to the United Kingdom, or by 15 March, whichever is the earlier.
6. MR NOTT: My Lord, I am grateful. Can you add a rider to that, that the £2,000 cash be surrendered to his solicitors and held to the order of the court. It is in Liverpool that £2,000.
7. MR JUSTICE KEITH: What normally happens when a cash deposit is required?
8. MR NOTT: I can tell you, my Lord. Normally it has to be surrendered to the Magistrates' Court that is dealing with the matter. But if you take the view that the family must ensure that that is surrendered at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court today or tomorrow, it will be.
9. MR JUSTICE KEITH: He is going on holiday when?
10. MR NOTT: Monday.
11. MR JUSTICE KEITH: So it has to be done today, has it not?
12. MR NOTT: The City of Westminster Magistrates' Court is open tomorrow morning, my Lord.
13. MR JUSTICE KEITH: Is it?
14. MR NOTT: Yes.
15. MR JUSTICE KEITH: I understand what you say, but I think the usual practice should apply.
16. MR NOTT: Thank you, my Lord.
17. MR JUSTICE KEITH: Thank you both very much.
18. MS EZEKIEL: My Lord, although your Lordship has not stated expressly, my learned friend and I take it to be implicit that during the period that Mr Dewhurst is in Goa, that the reporting and residence conditions are lifted.
19. MR JUSTICE KEITH: I think that that rather follows. I would not require him to return to the UK to sign on while he is in Goa.
20. MS EZEKIEL: Clearly.