Razza Aly v Italian Judicial Authority

In an extradition case, the presumption that a designated territory will comply with the European Convention on Human Rights may be rebutted only by clear and cogent evidence. The applicant must establish substantial grounds for believing that extradition would expose him to a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice.

Article 6 does not confer a general right to translation of every prosecution document. The right concerns essential documents and relevant passages, subject to the procedures for requesting and challenging decisions about further translations. Case-management requests for assurances cannot replace the applicant’s evidential burden.

The Italian Judicial Authority sought the applicant’s extradition to face allegations of voluntary and attempted voluntary manslaughter. The District Judge rejected his argument under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 that there was a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice because Italian trial documents might not be translated into Urdu.

The applicant challenged that conclusion. He relied on expert evidence concerning the translation of essential documents under Directive 2010/64/EU and Article 6. The central issue was whether the evidence rebutted the presumption that Italy would comply with its Convention obligations.

The application for permission to appeal was dismissed. The proposed ground of appeal was unarguable.

1. Applicable threshold. A Part 1 territory is presumed to fulfil its obligations under the Convention. That presumption can be rebutted only by clear and cogent evidence. Under section 21A(1)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003, the applicant had to show substantial grounds for believing that extradition would expose him to a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice. That is a stringent threshold, going beyond procedural irregularities or safeguards which might amount to an Article 6 breach domestically.
2. Translation rights. Article 3 of Directive 2010/64/EU concerns essential documents. It does not require translation of every prosecution document or of passages irrelevant to understanding the case. Other documents may be requested by reasoned application, and a decision refusing translation may be challenged. The applicant did not dispute that the Italian procedure complied with Article 3(5).
3. Evidence. Even assuming that the expert’s independence was not compromised, his evidence did not show clearly and cogently why each requested document, or its entirety, was essential. Material concerning the Italian court’s response was incomplete and untranslated. The evidence did not establish that the applicant would be denied translations merely because he had previously been absent or a fugitive.
4. Assurances. The earlier case-management direction seeking assurances was too broad if understood as requiring translation of any documents. It could not impose a precondition to extradition or alter the applicant’s evidential burden. The District Judge had to determine the Article 6 issue independently.

• High Court (Administrative Court): application for permission to appeal dismissed; the proposed Article 6 ground was held to be unarguable.
• Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Clarke rejected the Article 6 bar to extradition and made an extradition order. The applicant did not challenge the separate decision under section 21A concerning prison conditions.
• Magistrates’ Court case management: District Judge Rai directed that assurances be sought concerning interpretation and translation. The High Court held that this direction did not determine the evidential issue.