The High Court has allowed a man facing extradition proceedings to proceed with a fresh bail application, finding that the likely length of his detention had materially changed since an earlier bail refusal. The ruling did not determine whether he should be released on bail.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Edwards on 12 September 2013, concerned a preliminary objection by the Attorney General. The Attorney General argued that the renewed application should not proceed because there had been no substantive change in the man’s circumstances and a judge of the same court level had recently refused bail.
The man, named in the judgment as Eric Eoin Marques, had been arrested in Ireland on 1 August 2013 under a provisional extradition warrant after the United States sought his extradition. The US charges were described in the judgment as involving alleged child pornography offences. They remain allegations in the US proceedings.
A judge refused bail on 2 August, citing flight risk and the possibility of interference with evidence, particularly computer evidence. A ministerial certificate confirming that a formal extradition request had been made was later produced within the 18-day period applicable to the provisional warrant. The man was then remanded in custody pending a hearing under section 29 of the Extradition Act 1965 to decide whether he should be committed to await the Minister’s extradition order or discharged.
The Attorney General submitted that the shift from provisional to formal extradition proceedings was procedural and seamless, and that the prospect of a formal request had been clear from the outset. The man’s counsel argued that, when bail was first refused, the court could not know whether the US authorities would submit the required request in time. The earlier judge had been asked to consider detention under the provisional warrant, which allowed for a maximum period of 18 days absent the certificate.
Mr Justice Edwards said a court should generally not revisit a bail refusal at the same level without a material change in circumstances. But he concluded that it could not be assumed the earlier judge had taken account of the possibility of detention lasting months if a formal request followed. The formal request meant the man was now likely to remain in custody for some months pending the section 29 hearing if bail were refused.
The court therefore allowed the fresh bail application to proceed in the interests of justice. It made no decision on the merits of that application.