R v Central Criminal Court ex parte Guney [1996] AC 616

Mr Nadir, charged with theft and false accounting, fled to Northern Cyprus while on bail. His surety Mr Guney challenged forfeiture of his recognisance. The House of Lords held that a defendant who is arraigned automatically surrenders to custody by operation of law, releasing the surety from his obligation.

Facts

Mr Asil Nadir was charged with offences of theft and false accounting on 16 December 1990. He was remanded on bail with conditions including a £2m deposit and five sureties totalling £1.5m. Mr Ramadan Guney signed a recognisance for £1m as surety on 28 January 1991, undertaking to ensure Mr Nadir surrendered to custody when required.

On 7 February 1992, charges were transferred to the Central Criminal Court under the Criminal Justice Act 1987. A preparatory hearing was held on 22 June 1992 at Chichester Rents, a building with no cells, custody area, or dock. Mr Nadir attended with his advisers and was formally arraigned, pleading not guilty. Counsel for prosecution and defence had agreed that Mr Nadir need not formally surrender to custody, believing this would keep Mr Guney’s recognisance in force. The judge was not informed of this arrangement.

On 4 May 1993, Mr Nadir fled to Northern Cyprus and became a fugitive from justice. Mr Guney was called upon to forfeit £1m and was ordered to pay £650,000.

Issues

Principal Legal Questions

1. Whether a defendant on bail who does not otherwise surrender to custody does so by operation of law upon formal arraignment.

2. Whether a different rule applies under the Criminal Justice Act 1987.

3. Whether any applicable rule can be varied or relaxed by order of the judge or agreement between parties or counsel.

Judgment

The Effect of Arraignment

Lord Steyn, delivering the leading judgment, held that arraignment operates as an automatic surrender to custody. He stated:

“When a defendant who has not previously surrendered to custody is so arraigned he thereby surrenders to the custody of the court. From that moment the defendant’s further detention lies solely within the discretion and power of the judge.”

Lord Steyn emphasised the need for certainty:

“The situation demands a clear-cut rule. It is imperative that there should be an objectively ascertainable formal act which causes a defendant’s bail to lapse at the beginning of a trial. In my judgment that formal act can only be the arraignment of a defendant.”

Application to Criminal Justice Act 1987

The House of Lords held that no different rule applied under the 1987 Act. Since section 8 expressly provides that a trial begins with a preparatory hearing and arraignment takes place at its start, the same rule applies.

Cannot Be Varied by Agreement

Lord Steyn rejected the argument that the rule could be displaced by judicial ruling or party agreement:

“Given that arraignment operates in law as a surrender to custody, the judge may not in law abdicate his responsibility in respect of the custody of the defendant. He cannot deprive an arraignment of its legal effect. A fortiori the agreement of the parties cannot divest an arraignment of its effect on bail.”

Implications

This case established that the formal act of arraignment automatically terminates bail by operation of law, regardless of physical arrangements in the courtroom or informal agreements between counsel. The rule provides certainty in criminal proceedings and ensures that the moment of surrender to custody is objectively ascertainable. The decision clarified that sureties are released from their recognisances upon arraignment, even where the defendant subsequently absconds after being granted fresh bail by the trial judge.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision that Mr Nadir had surrendered to custody upon his arraignment on 22 June 1992, thereby releasing Mr Guney from his recognisance as surety. The Serious Fraud Office was ordered to pay Mr Guney’s costs.

Source: R v Central Criminal Court ex parte Guney [1996] AC 616