Hasan Koceku v Republic of Albania

On an appeal under the Extradition Act 2003, the High Court asks whether the district judge’s decision was wrong, rather than conducting a rehearing or rebalancing the evidence afresh.

In an Article 8 proportionality assessment, the likely sentence may be relevant even in a Part 2 case, although the statutory Part 1 provisions cannot be transposed into Part 2. A prosecutor’s sentencing position is not binding on the requesting court. Alleged violence may be considered as part of the factual matrix of a firearms offence, even where no separate violence charge was brought. An error warrants allowing an appeal only if it materially affected the proportionality assessment.

The appellant appealed against a district judge’s decision under sections 87(3) and 103(1) of the Extradition Act 2003 to send his case to the Secretary of State for extradition to Albania.

He had been convicted in Albania of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. Both the defence and prosecution had appealed. The prosecution sought a suspended sentence, asserting that immediate custody resulted from a legal mistake. The appellant also relied on a subsequent Home Office Single Competent Authority decision finding modern slavery victim status, together with family life, mental health, alleged blood-feud risks and delay.

The central issue was whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 rights and whether the district judge’s assessment was legally wrong.

1. Appeal test. The appeal was dismissed. Under section 104(2)–(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, the question was whether the district judge’s decision was wrong. The High Court was not conducting a rehearing or merely revisiting the weight given to the evidence. It could intervene where the overall evaluation was wrong because crucial factors ought to have been weighed so differently that discharge was required. [2018] 1 WLR 2889; [2016] 1 WLR 551.
2. Article 8 and likely penalty. The district judge was entitled to consider the likely penalty in the Article 8 balance. However, he was right not to transpose section 21A of the Act into Part 2, because Parliament had not included an equivalent provision. The district judge had nevertheless adopted, in substance, an analogous approach by considering the likely sentence. [2014] EWHC 4261 (Admin).
3. Prosecution appeal and sentencing. The Albanian prosecution’s position that a suspended sentence was appropriate was relevant but not binding on the Albanian court. The decision on sentence belonged to the court, not the prosecutor. The unusual prosecution appeal therefore did not substantially reduce the public interest in extradition. A possible non-custodial outcome did not prevent extradition from being proportionate.
4. Nature of the offence. The district judge was entitled to treat the alleged violence as part of the factual matrix of the firearms offence, despite the appellant not having been charged with a separate violent offence. The approach was comparable to the use of explanatory evidence under sections 101(1)(c) and 102 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
5. Other matters. The warrant-description error was immaterial. The delay in the Albanian appeals was not significant and there was no evidence of intentional delay. The later Conclusive Grounds decision was too brief and inconsistent with the appellant’s case to assist the Article 8 assessment and was not admitted. The district judge had properly considered the alleged blood feud, mental health evidence and private and family life.
6. The appeal was dismissed.

The judgment describes an appeal from the decision of DJ Clews dated 18 April 2023. The district judge sent the case to the Secretary of State for extradition under sections 87(3) and 103(1) of the Extradition Act 2003. The High Court dismissed the appeal.