Voci v Government of the Republic of Albania

In an extradition appeal, factual findings by the District Judge are governed by the ordinary appellate approach. An appellate court should not interfere where the conclusion was open on the evidence. A claimant alleging a blood feud must establish that this particular account is credible; evidence that the account is generally consistent with blood-feud practices does not establish that a feud exists. For Convention claims, the court must assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the person faces a real risk of treatment contrary to Articles 2 or 3. Assurances from the requesting state are not conclusive, but are relevant safeguards and must be taken into account.

Albania sought the claimant’s extradition to serve a life sentence for murder. The District Judge sent the case to the Secretary of State under section 87(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. The claimant appealed, arguing that he was the target of an active blood feud and that he faced a real risk of death or ill-treatment in Albanian prison.

The appeal concerned whether the District Judge had applied the wrong test, improperly assessed the expert and medical evidence, or failed to give sufficient weight to prison conditions and the Albanian authorities’ assurances.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge was entitled to reject the claimant’s account that he was the target of an active blood feud. The ordinary rules governing appeals against factual findings applied equally in extradition proceedings.
2. Evidence that the claimant’s account was consistent with a blood feud did not establish that a feud actually existed. The experts had not adequately addressed the possibility that the account was fabricated or that the killing, although capable of initiating a feud, would not inevitably do so. The medical evidence concerning a gunshot wound was also capable of explanations unrelated to a blood feud.
3. Applying Bagdanavicius v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 38, the relevant question was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the claimant faced a real risk of treatment contrary to Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention. The requesting state’s protective measures were relevant. Assurances were not treated as watertight, but they had to be taken into account.
4. The evidence concerning generally poor Albanian prison conditions did not establish a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in the claimant’s particular case. The Albanian assurances that he would receive continuous protection and would not be held in the described conditions were matters the District Judge was entitled to weigh. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal against the District Judge’s decision to send the case to the Secretary of State under section 87(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.