Sadushi v The Government of Albania

In an extradition case involving an absent conviction, general evidence of human-rights failings ordinarily does not prevent extradition. It will suffice only in the most extreme cases, where it establishes a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice. The requested person’s particular circumstances must also be considered.

A closely reasoned decision of a senior appellate court in another United Kingdom jurisdiction on the same statutory and Convention issue should ordinarily be followed unless demonstrably wrong or substantially undermined by new evidence. A right to retrial is sufficient where it is real and effective, even if its exercise involves procedural steps. An explicit guarantee from the requesting state may provide cogent assurance of that right.

Two appeals concerned extradition requests by Albania. Sadushi had died, and his appeal was formally dismissed. Bardoshi challenged District Judge Grant’s decision of 1 March 2013 to send his case to the Secretary of State under the Extradition Act 2003; the Secretary of State ordered extradition on 28 April 2013.

Bardoshi had been convicted in absentia in Albania of premeditated murder and firearms offences. He argued that extradition would expose him to judicial corruption, breach Convention rights, and denial of a retrial. The central issues were the weight to be given to the Scottish High Court of Justiciary’s decision in Kapri v Lord Advocate, and whether Albanian law and the Albanian Ministry of Justice’s guarantee provided a real and effective right to retrial.

1. Disposition. Sadushi’s appeal was formally dismissed following his death. Bardoshi’s appeal was dismissed.
2. Judicial corruption. The Scottish High Court of Justiciary was not binding, but its conclusions on the same issue were highly persuasive. The court should follow them unless they were demonstrably wrong or substantially undermined by evidence not before the Scottish court. Consistency and proportionate use of judicial resources supported that approach.
3. The Othman v United Kingdom test was not diluted. General evidence of shortcomings in Albania would ordinarily be insufficient. It could establish a breach only where it was so strong that extradition would create a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice. The evidence did not establish systemic corruption or such a risk in Bardoshi’s case. The recent GRECO report supported the Scottish court’s assessment.
4. Retrial. Under section 85(5) of the Extradition Act 2003, the relevant question was whether Bardoshi would have a real and effective right to retrial or an equivalent review. The court was concerned with practical protection rather than doctrinal objections to Albanian law. The Albanian Ministry of Justice had expressly guaranteed the right. The materials and decisions relied on did not undermine that guarantee.
5. The co-defendant’s appeal did not deprive Bardoshi of a retrial. On the face of the Albanian Supreme Court decision, it was confined to the co-defendant’s grounds. It would also be prima facie unfair, contrary to article 6, for one defendant’s separate appeal on different issues to determine another defendant’s appeal rights.
6. The remaining arguments concerning police-station conditions, blood feud, delay and article 8 did not support the appeal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Bardoshi’s appeal under section 103 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed. Sadushi’s appeal was formally dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates Court: District Judge Grant sent Bardoshi’s case to the Secretary of State on 1 March 2013.
• Secretary of State: Extradition was ordered on 28 April 2013.