Xhelili v Republic of Albania

Article 8 challenges in extradition proceedings are determined individually, by applying the principles established by the Supreme Court. There has been no general change of policy or approach by the Divisional Court. The fact that some later decisions allowed or considered Article 8 arguments does not create a more lenient general threshold. The appeal was dismissed, having been withdrawn, and would in any event have failed.

The claimant appealed under section 103 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s decision sending his case to the Secretary of State for extradition to Albania. The Secretary of State ordered extradition. The claimant did not pursue the appeal and invited its dismissal. The court also considered an issue concerning the claimant’s mental health and an undertaking that relevant reports would be supplied to the Albanian authorities.

The judgment additionally addressed the District Judge’s suggestion that the Divisional Court had adopted a policy of softening its approach to Article 8 challenges.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The claimant had withdrawn it and invited dismissal. It would in any event have failed for the reasons advanced on behalf of the respondent.

2. The court noted an issue concerning the claimant’s mental health. An undertaking was given, through the Home Office, to ensure that any relevant report was brought to the attention of the Albanian authorities.

3. Lord Justice Aikens agreed with the dismissal and adopted the reasoning of the judge below. He stated that the District Judge was wrong insofar as he suggested that the Divisional Court had made a policy decision to soften its approach to Article 8 claims.

4. The Divisional Court follows the guidelines and principles stated by the Supreme Court in Norris v USA (No 2) [2010] 2 AC 487 and HH v Italy [2013] 1 AC 338. There is no general change of policy or approach. Article 8 claims must be considered on their individual facts and in the light of those principles.

High Court (Administrative Court): The claimant appealed against the decision of District Judge Zani in Westminster Magistrates’ Court. The Secretary of State subsequently ordered extradition. The appeal was withdrawn and dismissed.