Murtati v Government of the Republic of Albania

Under section 82 of the Extradition Act 2003, delay caused by a requested person’s flight, concealment or evasion will ordinarily not make extradition unjust or oppressive. Speculative assertions about possible prejudice at trial are insufficient.

For section 85, the requesting state must establish that the person would receive a retrial or review amounting to a retrial with the rights required by section 85(8). Those requirements reflect, and do not add to, the overall-fairness guarantee in Article 6 of the Convention. An assurance that Article 6 will apply, supported by the available legal material, may prima facie satisfy the requesting state’s burden.

The appellant challenged the Secretary of State’s order for his extradition to Albania to serve an 11½-year sentence imposed after his conviction in absentia for armed robbery and unlawful possession of military weapons.

The appeal under section 103 of the Extradition Act 2003 concerned whether extradition was barred by the passage of time under section 82 and whether the appellant would be entitled to a retrial or review amounting to a retrial under section 85. The identity issue decided below was not pursued.

1. Section 82. The appellant was to be treated as a fugitive. The court applied the principle that delay caused by flight, concealment or evasion cannot ordinarily be relied upon as making extradition unjust or oppressive. The appellant’s suggested difficulties in challenging identification evidence and establishing an alibi were speculative and did not demonstrate prejudice in the conduct of a trial in Albania.
2. Section 85. The respondent bore the burden of establishing that the appellant would have the necessary retrial rights. Section 85(8) reflects Article 6(3)(c) and (d) of the Convention. It requires the court to apply the Article 6 test, but does not impose a requirement additional to the Convention’s requirement that the trial process as a whole be fair.
3. The Albanian Constitution gave the Convention a privileged status and permitted direct reliance on Strasbourg jurisprudence. The available material established that the relevant Albanian procedure allowed a retrial and that Article 6 would apply. The respondent’s assurance, together with the legal material, prima facie satisfied its burden. Speculative submissions about how the retrial might proceed, unsupported by expert or other evidence, were insufficient to rebut that conclusion.
4. The decisions in Bogdani v Government of Albania and Da An Chen v The Government of Romania supported the conclusion that the section 85 requirements were met. The appeal was dismissed.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal under section 103 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed.
2. City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: on 6 June 2008, the Deputy Senior District Judge sent the case to the Secretary of State for her decision on extradition.
3. Secretary of State: on 30 June 2008, the appellant’s extradition was ordered.