[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 >> Abukar v Public Prosecutor, Holland [2015] EWHC 3015 (Admin) (02 October 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/3015.html Cite as: [2015] EWHC 3015 (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 WC2A 2LL
		2 October 2015

1. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: This is an application for bail after the arrest of the applicant on an inward bound flight from Vienna a few days ago, on 28 September. Bail was refused by the District Judge on the basis of the seriousness of the offending for which he is wanted in the Netherlands, the lack of community ties and the fact that only £500 was offered in terms of security.
2. The offending is on the face serious. It involves a robbery of a jewellery shop with another person and the use of weapons. However, the form A Supplementary Information states that the applicant has only 180 days to serve and that a certain amount of time has already been served. This is a conviction warrant and so the presumption is against bail. But I am mindful of the difficulties that he may have in obtaining representation for the hearing dated 29 October and that that may lead to an appeal with consequent delay and continued detention if bail is not granted.
3. It seems to me that bail can be granted in this case but it must be subject to a curfew with a tag. Also he must report between 8.00 am and midday. The police have made enquiries about his accommodation and were not able to find evidence of his being at the address that he has given. I am certainly not granting bail until that matter is resolved. Therefore, what I am proposing to do is to grant bail in principle but no final order will be made until there is a satisfactory report by the police about the address which will be a condition of the bail.
4. I am proposing, therefore, that the matter be dealt with on the papers. An email is to be sent to my clerk. I will therefore deal with the matter on Monday or early next week.
5. MR STANSFELD: Yes. I am grateful, my Lord. Two points if I may. You indicated that there would be conditions of curfew and reporting. Is my Lord also proposing for the pre-release condition of the security that was offered? One of the conditions offered was the pre-release security of £1,500.
6. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Yes. He has to provide that.
7. MR STANSFELD: Well, yes. I thought he said --
8. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: I thought he provided it.
9. MR FIDLER: No, they won't take it until there is an order.
10. MR STANSFELD: Yes, there will have to be an order for bail and then he will have to pay that into the relevant place.
11. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Yes, definitely.
12. MR STANSFELD: With respect to the police enquiries, I know there are to methods by which the police can make enquiries.
13. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Yes.
14. MR STANSFELD: The first is either that they simply do an electoral register check and see if, for example, his father is on the electoral register or they physically attend the address. Do I understand my Lord to be seeking this, attending the address to make sure that someone lives there who knows the applicant is staying there.
15. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: I would have thought they have to attend but I am not going to tell the police how to do it. But unless the report is satisfactory then he is not getting bail.
16. MR STANSFELD: Thank you, my Lord.
17. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: What about the hours of curfew?
18. MR FIDLER: I am going to suggest at this stage between 11.00 pm and 7.00 am.
19. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Yes. Any problems?
20. MR STANSFELD: No submissions.
21. MR JUSTICE CRANSTON: Okay, you email my clerk.
22. MR FIDLER: Yes. Thank you, my Lord.