Prenga v The Republic of Albania

On an appeal under the Extradition Act 2003, the question is whether the whole material establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that the requested person’s conviction resulted from a confession or admission obtained by torture or other ill-treatment contrary to Article 3. Evidence that ill-treatment occurred, or may have been intended to obtain a confession, is insufficient without proof that it procured the conviction. A detailed admission made directly to the trial court may support the presumption that the conviction was based on the accused’s account rather than an earlier confession. The appeal was dismissed where the evidence did not displace that conclusion.

The appellant appealed under section 103 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a district judge’s decision sending his case to the Secretary of State for a decision on extradition to Albania. He had been convicted in Albania of two murders and possession of an illegal weapon and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment.

He alleged that Albanian police had beaten him to obtain a confession and that his guilty plea at trial was made to avoid further ill-treatment and the death penalty. The District Judge rejected the challenge. The central issue before the Divisional Court was whether the conviction had been procured by torture or other Article 3 ill-treatment.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Under sections 103 and 104 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court could consider material unavailable to the District Judge. The decisive question was whether, on the whole material, the appellant had established on the balance of probabilities that his conviction resulted from a confession or admission obtained by torture or other ill-treatment contrary to Article 3.
2. The court accepted that the appellant had been ill-treated in police custody and was prepared to accept that the ill-treatment may have been intended to obtain a confession. Those findings did not themselves establish that the conviction was procured by such treatment.
3. The Albanian trial record recorded an expedited hearing and a detailed circumstantial account by the appellant of the killings, including his motives and conduct. The appellant and his trial lawyer did not address the implicit assertion that he had personally given that account to the trial court. The record therefore remained sufficient to support the conclusion that the conviction reflected a full admission made to the court.
4. The evidence concerning the abandoned appeal and the investigating officer’s doubts about guilt did not establish that the conviction rested only on a confession or admission caused by torture or other Article 3 ill-treatment. The claimed wish to avoid the death penalty also weakened the reliability of the appellant’s and his lawyer’s accounts because capital punishment was no longer available at the time of trial.
5. The evidence consequently failed to displace the presumption that the requesting state was acting in good faith or to satisfy the applicable burden of proof.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 103 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed.
• District Judge: On 20 July 2005, District Judge Tubbs sent the appellant’s case to the Secretary of State for a decision on extradition and rejected the allegation that the conviction had been procured by ill-treatment.