Prendi (aka Aleks Kola) v The Government of the Republic of Albania

In extradition proceedings, the requesting state must prove on the balance of probabilities that the person before the court is the person whose extradition is requested. Extradition proceedings are generally governed by the ordinary rules of criminal evidence. Section 202(5) of the Extradition Act 2003 permits receipt of an unauthenticated document, but does not make its contents admissible automatically. The judge must decide whether the document is admissible as evidence of its contents by applying the criminal evidence rules, subject to any limited statutory exception. A document assembled from unidentified sources does not establish the reliability or provenance of photographs, fingerprints or physical descriptions merely because it comes from an apparently reliable organisation. Where identity cannot be proved without such material, the extradition request must fail.

The Government of Albania sought the extradition of the appellant to serve a 21-year sentence imposed in Albania after a trial in his absence. The appellant said that he was Aleks Kola, not Leke Prendi, the person named in the extradition request.

The District Judge admitted an unauthenticated Interpol red notice and addendum, which contained a photograph, fingerprint images and a physical description. Relying principally on a fingerprint comparison, the District Judge found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant was Leke Prendi and sent the case to the Secretary of State under section 87 of the Extradition Act 2003. The central issues were the admissibility and weight of the red notice and whether identity had been proved.

1. Appeal allowed. The Government had not proved on the balance of probabilities that the appellant was Leke Prendi, the person whose extradition was requested.
2. Under sections 77(1), 78(4) and 78(5) of the Extradition Act 2003, the requesting state bears the burden of proving identity on the balance of probabilities. The court accepted that extradition proceedings are, in general, to be treated as criminal proceedings for evidential purposes. The ordinary rules of criminal evidence therefore guide the admission of evidence.
3. Section 202(5) permits an unauthenticated document to be received, but leaves the decision to the appropriate judge. It does not make the document admissible as evidence of its contents merely because it originates from a reliable source. The correct question was whether the red notice and addendum were admissible under the English rules of criminal evidence.
4. The red notice was a compilation of a photograph, fingerprint images and physical particulars obtained from unidentified sources. There was no evidence when, where or how the photograph was taken, the fingerprints obtained, or the height measured. The assertion by Interpol Tirana did not establish the reliability of the underlying sources. The red notice and addendum were therefore inadmissible as evidence of the facts stated in them.
5. Even if admitted, the material carried insufficient weight. The photograph did not appear to be an official photograph; the provenance of the fingerprints was unproved; the discrepancy in height was unexplained; and there was no reliable evidence that the appellant had the requested person’s date of birth. The District Judge had therefore also reached the wrong conclusion on the evidence.
6. The court refused to receive further material served after the hearing. No satisfactory explanation had been given for its late production, and the issue of provenance had been apparent throughout. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, further evidence will not ordinarily be received after the hearing has concluded.

High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal against the District Judge’s decision of 26 November 2014 to send the case to the Secretary of State under section 87 of the Extradition Act 2003.