Bushi v Government of Albania

An extradition appeal should proceed on the listed date unless the applicant shows a proper and timely basis for adjournment and a realistic prospect of success. Where the material discloses no arguable error in the lower court’s findings, the appeal may be dismissed under section 103(4) of the Extradition Act 2003. Delay caused by difficulties in contacting an applicant, without evidence that reasonable steps were taken earlier to secure access or legal aid, does not justify postponing the hearing.

The claimant appealed against the Deputy Senior District Judge’s decision concerning Albania’s request for his extradition. He had been arrested pursuant to an Albanian warrant and a certificate had been issued under section 70 of the Extradition Act 2003. Albania sought his return following a conviction in his absence for manslaughter.

The claimant challenged his identification, relied on the passage of time, and asserted that his return would expose him to a blood feud and a real risk to his life. On the hearing date, his representative sought an adjournment because difficulties had prevented further instructions and legal aid had not yet been granted. The central issues were whether the hearing should be delayed and whether any arguable error had been shown in the District Judge’s conclusions.

1. Adjournment. The Divisional Court refused the application to adjourn. The case had been listed for some time, and the difficulties in contacting the claimant had existed for weeks. Although visits to the claimant in prison had reportedly been refused because they were fully booked, the available means of securing a visit had not been used. A late written application and the absence of completed legal aid arrangements did not provide a sufficient basis for delay.
2. Merits. The court considered the appeal on the papers and the material before the Deputy Senior District Judge. It held that there was no possible arguable basis for contending that she had erred in rejecting the claimant’s objections to extradition.
3. The identity challenge failed on the fingerprint evidence and evidence linking the claimant to the wife of the person sought. The passage-of-time argument failed because the claimant had absconded from Albania and concealed himself in the United Kingdom. The blood-feud argument had been considered and rejected by the District Judge.
4. The appeal was dismissed under section 103(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, the court finding no arguable error in the lower court’s conclusions.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The court refused an adjournment and dismissed the extradition appeal under section 103(4) of the Extradition Act 2003.
• Deputy Senior District Judge: The lower court rejected the claimant’s objections to extradition and concluded that the matter should proceed to the Secretary of State.