Afrim Bardhoshi v Government of Albania

In an extradition appeal raising Article 8 ECHR, family life and the welfare of children must be assessed in the light of all current evidence. Hardship caused by extradition, including separation from dependent family members, may be outweighed decisively by the public interest in extradition where the offending is serious. A court considering renewed permission must re-evaluate the arguability of the proposed appeal by reference to any properly admitted updating evidence. Permission should be refused where there is no realistic prospect that the earlier Article 8 assessment would be shown to be wrong.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to Albania to serve the balance of a sentence imposed following conviction for assisting the illegal crossing of borders. A District Judge rejected his Article 3 and Article 8 ECHR claims, and the Secretary of State ordered extradition. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Johnson J.

The appellant renewed permission on Article 8 grounds and sought to rely on updating evidence concerning his partner, children and seriously ill sister, together with evidence of his conduct while detained on remand. The central issue was whether that evidence created a reasonably arguable basis for concluding that the Article 8 outcome reached below was wrong.

1. Fresh evidence. The court permitted reliance on the latest updating evidence concerning the appellant’s family and prison conduct. Although some prison material could have been adduced earlier, it was appropriate to consider the full and updated position.
2. Article 8 assessment. The court considered all the circumstances and treated the welfare of both daughters as a primary consideration. It accepted that the appellant’s partner and their young daughter could not reasonably be expected to relocate to Albania, particularly because the partner was caring for the appellant’s sister, who had been diagnosed with leukaemia and wished to continue treatment in the United Kingdom.
3. The appellant’s settled residence, family life, the effect of separation, his sister’s dependence, his good conduct in prison and the credit for qualifying remand were capable of weighing against extradition. Those matters nevertheless did not establish an arguable error in the Article 8 balance.
4. The strong public interest in extradition decisively outweighed the competing family interests. The offending involved people smuggling, and its seriousness was reflected in the sentence imposed. There was no realistic prospect that a substantive appeal would establish that the Article 8 outcome was wrong.
5. Permission to appeal was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): renewed permission to appeal refused.
• District Judge: rejected the appellant’s Article 3 and Article 8 ECHR claims in a judgment dated 6 November 2020.
• Secretary of State: ordered extradition on 15 December 2020.
• High Court: Johnson J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 26 February 2021.