Republic of Albania v Bleta & Anor

For an extradition request concerning a conviction in the person’s absence, section 85(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 requires deliberate absence from a specific trial. Leaving the requesting state, even to evade arrest, is insufficient where the person did not know of the trial or proceedings leading to it. Extradition legislation must be construed purposively and with regard to different legal systems, but the statutory wording cannot be expanded from a trial to the wider legal process. Under section 85(5), a retrial guarantee must provide sufficient clarity that the person is legally entitled to a retrial or review amounting to one. Good faith, treaty ratification and general assurances of rights do not cure substantial uncertainty or discretionary procedures.

The Government of Albania appealed against Senior District Judge Workman’s decision to discharge Fatmir Bleta under section 85(7) of the Extradition Act 2003. Bleta had been convicted in absentia in Albania of murder and illegal possession of a military weapon. The district judge found that he had not deliberately absented himself from his trial and that he was not entitled to a retrial or review amounting to a retrial.

A previous certificate had been quashed by Crane J: [2005] 1 All ER 810. A replacement certificate was issued and was not challenged. On appeal, the issues were whether later assurances and information established the retrial entitlement required by section 85(5), and whether Bleta’s departure from Albania amounted to deliberate absence from his trial under section 85(3).

Pill LJ delivered the judgment, with which Cox J agreed. The appeal was dismissed. The Government was granted an extension of 19 days for service of the notice of appeal.

1. Retrial assurance. The court accepted that it could act upon an assurance from a requesting state, as illustrated by Peci v Governor of Brixton Prison and Government of Switzerland The Times January 12 2000 DC. However, section 85(5) required the court to be satisfied that Bleta would be entitled to a retrial or, on appeal, a review amounting to a retrial. The court made allowance for translation difficulties, foreign legal concepts and provisions not drafted for the present circumstances. Even so, the Albanian provisions and the successive explanations contained too many open ends and insufficient clarity. The guarantee was given in good faith, but that did not establish the required legal entitlement. References to the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Covenants and the Albanian Constitution were insufficient in themselves.
2. Deliberate absence. Section 85(3) required consideration of both deliberate absence and the meaning of a trial. The expression contemplated absence from a specific trial, not departure from the entire criminal process. There was no evidence that Bleta knew of the existence of a trial or proceedings which might lead to one. His departure from Albania, even if intended to avoid arrest, therefore did not satisfy the statutory expression.
3. Construction. The court accepted the purposive and cosmopolitan approach to extradition legislation stated in In re Ismail [1999] 1 AC 320 and Cartwright v Superintendent of Her Majesty’s Prison & Anr [2004] 1 WLR 902. Substance rather than technical form could be considered, but the text remained controlling. The minority reasoning in Cartwright was also treated as a useful guide against giving plain statutory words a far-fetched meaning.
4. Article 6 and domestic authorities. The court construed section 85(3) in the context of the fundamental importance of a defendant’s appearance at trial and notification of criminal proceedings. R v Hayward [2001] EWCA Crim 168 and Spinnato v Governor of HM Prison Brixton and the Government of Italy [2001] EWHC Admin 1124 concerned materially later stages of proceedings and did not govern the present facts. R v Jones (Anthony) [2003] 1 AC 1 (HL) confirmed the importance of knowledge of the forthcoming trial.
5. Because neither deliberate absence nor the required retrial entitlement was established, section 85(7) required Bleta’s discharge.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — [2005] EWHC 475 (Admin): dismissed the Government’s appeal and upheld the discharge.
2. Senior District Judge Workman — reserved judgment handed down on 28 October 2004: discharged Bleta under section 85(7) of the Extradition Act 2003, finding no deliberate absence from the trial and no entitlement to a retrial or review amounting to a retrial.