Brahja v Governor of H.M Prison Brixton

In extradition proceedings, the requesting government bears the burden of proving, to the criminal standard, that the person before the court is the person identified in the extradition request. The court may determine identity from the cumulative effect of the available evidence, including names, addresses, photographs and personal documents. Differences in a date or place of birth do not require discharge where the evidence as a whole reasonably establishes identity and the discrepancies do not displace that conclusion.

The applicant sought habeas corpus challenging his detention under a committal order made by a district judge at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court on 15 October 2002. The application arose from an extradition request by the Government of Italy concerning a person named Altan Brahja, known as “Zoni”. The applicant accepted that he was the person named in an earlier Albanian extradition request, but disputed that he was the person sought by Italy. The central issue was whether the Italian Government had proved his identity to the criminal standard.

1. The application for habeas corpus was refused. The district judge was entitled to conclude that the applicant was the same person as the individual sought by the Italian authorities.
2. It was common ground that the burden of proof lay on the Italian Government and that the applicable standard was the criminal standard. The district judge had directed himself correctly on both matters.
3. The evidence supporting identity included the applicant’s use of the name Artan or Altan Brahja, the address supplied in the Italian request, and a provisional driving licence bearing a photograph strikingly resembling the applicant. The licence used the name Altan Brahza, gave a 1970 date of birth, and identified Kosovo as the place of birth. Those details were materially consistent with the Italian request.
4. The differences between the Italian information and the Albanian birth certificate, including the precise date and place of birth, did not displace the conclusion reached. The question was one of fact for the district judge, and his conclusion was entirely open to him on the evidence.

Mr Justice Moses agreed with Lady Justice Hale. The application was refused, and the applicant was entitled to an assessment of his costs.

The judgment does not state an appellate history. It concerns an application challenging a committal order made by Bow Street Magistrates’ Court.