[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 >> Pham v The District Court for the Southern District of New York [2012] EWHC 3890 (Admin) (13 December 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/3890.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 3890 (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
		13 December 2012

1. MR JUSTICE BLAKE: This is an application for bail in extradition proceedings made pursuant to section 1A of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, inserted by amendments made to the Police and Justice Act 2006. The applicant was born in Vietnam; he apparently came to the United Kingdom as a young man with his family, and he has parents and siblings here. In due course he naturalised as a British citizen; married and until the events giving rise to this application, as far as this court is aware, is of good character with nothing to his discredit.
2. In December 2010, he left the United Kingdom. He had previously converted to Islam and taken an Islamic name. He told his wife he was going to the Republic of Ireland, he in fact travelled to the Yemen, where he remained until July 2011, some seven months later. His family reported him missing to the police, as they did not know where he was.
3. On his return, when searched at the airport he was found to be in possession of a bullet, the type that can be used in a Kalashnikov rifle, and a quantity of money: 7,000 euros in 500 euro notes, and also a laptop computer. Although he was on police bail in respect of those matters for a period, that did not result in any criminal charge, he was cautioned for an offence under the Aviation Security Act 1982. The Secretary of State, however, took proceedings to deprive him of his British nationality, and from December 2011 until June 2012 he was detained in pursuance of these proceedings. The full details of those proceedings are not before the court but the end result was that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ("SIAC"), in a panel presided over by its president, Mitting J, concluded that the criteria for depriving the applicant of British nationality were not made out. I have been informed that the issue was likely to have been the question of whether deprivation would have made him stateless by reason of the attitude of the Vietnamese authorities to receiving back someone who had been born in their lands. I should add that the Secretary of State has now obtained permission to appeal the judgment of SIAC in that case.
4. In the event, he was granted, unconditional bail by SIAC. I have been informed that on 29 June 2012, when that unconditional bail was granted, that Mitting J was aware that this applicant was also of interest in New York, which is the basis for the present proceedings.
5. Following the grant of bail by SIAC he was promptly rearrested on the extradition request and faces extradition on five counts, including conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organisation and particular counts and overt acts in support of that conspiracy.
6. The conspiracy is said to relate to what he was doing when he was in Yemen. It is said through a cooperating anonymous witness, who has identified the applicant from photographs, that he made contact with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsular ("AQAP") and had indicated that he was trained in weaponry and wanted to engage in martyrdom operations. That is disputed by the applicant, and that dispute may form part of the challenge to the extradition request which is due to be heard, I am informed, in March 2013.
7. The applicant has been refused bail on two occasions by the District Judge and the senior District Judge in the Extradition Court.
8. Before me, the application for bail is advanced, essentially, on the bases of (i) strong family ties; (ii) his failure to abscond when first he was on police bail in connection with his return to the United Kingdom from the Yemen; (iii) during the interlude before SIAC proceedings were taken; and (iv) the attitude of Mitting J towards him at the end of those proceedings.
9. However, in my judgment, the fact that there was concern about possession of a bullet and related material when he first arrived and the fact that he was facing nationality deprivation proceedings has comparatively little weight compared to the incentive to abscond arising from the fact that he now faces extradition to the United States of America on serious charges of criminal contact with an organisation in Yemen known to have committed serious terrorist crimes and to be a centre of terrorist activity of international concern.
10. I therefore conclude, despite the submissions that have been advanced before me, that this is not a case for grant of bail in principle, and the particular reliance upon his family here has to take into account the fact that if what is alleged against him has substance, he appears to have lied to his wife about the purpose of his lengthy visit to the Yemen. If he was to engage in martyrdom operations, then quite clearly his family was not a sufficient basis to deter him from that course of conduct.
11. It is submitted that there is cumulatively a strong case against him by reason of both the admitted fact of his travel to Yemen, the implicatory innuendo of what was in his possession when he returned, albeit that there is a dispute as to the extent to which it can be established that his computer was in connection with extremist material, but in particular the emergence of a cooperating witness in the United States who has put Mr Pham in the frame for serious allegations of active participation in a terrorist conspiracy.
12. For those reasons, certainly as of today's date when these matters are proceedings, this is not a case for bail and this application is therefore refused. Thank you very much.