Beshiri v The Government of the Republic of Albania

On an extradition appeal, the statutory conditions governing fresh issues and evidence remain binding even where the defendant was unrepresented at the extradition hearing. The appellate court may consider material provisionally where Convention rights are engaged, but it may allow the appeal only if the statutory requirements are satisfied.

A District Judge must facilitate the presentation of a clear case by an unrepresented defendant. That duty does not require the judge to search publicly available material, introduce evidence supporting the defendant, or enter the arena. An Article 3 objection requires evidence establishing a real risk of prohibited treatment on return. A statutory bar based on extraneous or political motives requires evidence connecting that motive to the extradition request.

Alban Beshiri appealed against a District Judge’s order of 6 September 2016 sending the case to the Secretary of State for a decision on extradition to Albania. The Secretary of State ordered extradition on 28 October 2016. Permission to appeal was granted on 2 February 2017.

The appeal concerned sections 81 and 87 of the Extradition Act 2003, and Articles 3 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The appellant alleged police mistreatment in Albania, asserted that his complaints amounted to political opinions, and argued that he faced a risk of ill-treatment and an unfair retrial. He also sought to rely on substantial further evidence, having been unrepresented below. The central issues were whether the further material could be admitted and whether extradition was barred by statute or Convention rights.

1. Appeal dismissed. The statutory framework governing extradition appeals applied in full. Under sections 103 and 104 of the Extradition Act 2003, fresh evidence could justify allowing an appeal only where it was unavailable at the extradition hearing, would have led the District Judge to decide a question differently, and would have required the appellant’s discharge. The fact that the appellant had been unrepresented did not disapply those conditions. Material could, where Convention rights were centrally engaged, be considered de bene esse, but the appeal still had to be decided in accordance with the statute.
2. A District Judge dealing with an unrepresented person must explain the process sufficiently and assist the person to present a clear case. The judge may adopt an inquisitorial role to the extent necessary for that purpose. The duty does not require the judge to canvass potentially relevant public material, introduce evidence supporting the defence, or construct a case for the defendant. Doing so would risk drawing the judge into the arena. The observations in Weszka v Regional Court in Poznan, Poland [2017] EWHC 168 (Admin) did not support the wider submission advanced.
3. The further evidence was considered provisionally. The appellant’s accounts were materially inconsistent and exaggerated. The evidence did not establish that the extradition request had been made for extraneous reasons, including retaliation for complaints about police treatment or judicial corruption. Sections 81(a) and 81(b) therefore created no bar.
4. The evidence did not establish a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3. The general problems identified in the CPT material concerned police mistreatment during active criminal investigations, particularly attempts to obtain confessions. The appellant admitted the offending, would not require such an investigation, and would principally be held in prison custody. The evidence did not show a pattern of violence in Albanian prisons.
5. There was no Article 6 bar. The appellant had a right to a retrial following his trial in absence, but the evidence did not establish a sufficient risk that the retrial would breach Article 6. Extradition was compatible with his Convention rights.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the District Judge’s order of 6 September 2016 was dismissed. The Secretary of State’s extradition order dated 28 October 2016 was left standing.