Bogdani v Albanian Government

An extradition appeal may be adjourned to allow the requesting state a further opportunity to provide evidence on whether the statutory and Convention requirements for retrial are satisfied. The requesting state’s assurance must sufficiently guarantee a retrial safeguarding the accused’s defence rights. A right to rehearing subject to a time limit may be capable of satisfying Article 6, but the critical issue may be when the time for applying begins. The court may require focused evidence where clarification is necessary to establish a clear governing principle for future cases.

The appellant challenged extradition to Albania after conviction in his absence. Earlier adjournments had allowed the Albanian Government to provide material addressing the right to retrial under section 85 of the Extradition Act and Article 3 of the Protocol. The Administrative Court considered whether further evidence should be admitted and whether the issues concerning Article 6, Article 3 of the Protocol and the commencement of the Albanian time limit required clarification.

1. Adjournment granted. The court adjourned the appeal for 28 days so that the Albanian Government could provide further material directed to the requirements of Article 3(1) and (2) of the Protocol and section 85 of the Extradition Act. The appellant was given 14 days thereafter to respond.
2. The court considered that the issue should be resolved on the best material available, so that future applications involving the same question could be determined by an established principle of law. The seriousness of the alleged offence and the importance of clarifying the relevant legal issues justified the further adjournment despite previous delays.
3. The requesting state’s assurance must sufficiently guarantee a right to retrial which safeguards the rights of the defence. Only an assurance meeting that standard can satisfy the applicable test.
4. The court identified, without finally determining, whether Article 6 of the European Convention could be satisfied by a right to rehearing subject to a time limit, and whether the ten-day period under Article 147 began on surrender or at an earlier date. It also identified whether Article 3(2) assisted on that question.
5. If no further evidence was produced within 28 days, the appeal could be restored for hearing immediately thereafter.

The judgment describes an appeal involving extradition proceedings in the magistrates’ court. It does not state the citation of the decision under appeal.