Edmond Haxhia & Ors v Republic of Albania

Under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court may proceed only on the extradition request certified by the Secretary of State. Further information may supplement or explain that request, but cannot withdraw it and substitute a different request identifying different offences. Assurances cannot cure that defect.

An extradition order must identify, expressly or by incorporation, the offences for which extradition is ordered. It cannot refer to offences no longer sought or to offences outside the case sent by the district judge. The court also confirmed that a 35-year parole review period did not, on the evidence and authorities relied upon, establish a real risk of article 3 ill-treatment.

Five applicants faced extradition requests from Albania concerning the killing of Ardian Nikulaj. The requests initially referred to murder due to blood feud under article 78/a of the Albanian Code, illegal weapons offences under article 278/1, and complicity under article 25.

After certification under section 70 of the Extradition Act 2003, Albania abandoned the article 278/1 charges and sought prosecution of four applicants for premeditated murder under article 78. In Mr Haxhia’s case, an assurance was given that he would not be charged under article 78/a. The district judge nevertheless sent the cases to the Secretary of State, who made extradition orders.

The central issues were whether the altered requests could be considered, whether the extradition orders were legally defective, and whether the remaining human-rights objections succeeded.

1. Appeals allowed and applicants discharged. The court granted permission to appeal and allowed each appeal on the validity-of-request ground.
2. Following Birbeck v Principality of Andorra [2023] EWHC 1740 (Admin), the district judge must be satisfied that the request before the court meets section 70(4) of the Extradition Act 2003. The certified request is the gateway to the Part 2 process. The court must deal with that request, not a later substituted request.
3. Further information may supplement or explain an existing request. It cannot withdraw the certified request and replace it with one concerning different offences. Articles 78/a and 78 of the Albanian Code created separate offences. The fact that the alleged conduct or actus reus was materially the same did not make the change immaterial.
4. The assurances that the applicants would not be charged under article 78/a could not cure the defect. Assurances may facilitate compliance with an extradition request, but cannot change one request into another.
5. The judicial review claims also succeeded. Section 93(4) requires the Secretary of State to order extradition for the offence or offences concerned. The orders had to identify those offences. The orders referring to offences no longer sought, or to no charge at all in Mr Hunt’s case, were legally defective.
6. The other grounds were unnecessary to the result. The article 6 challenge would have failed because the evidence concerning Judge Perdeda was insufficient to establish a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice. The prison-condition and inter-prisoner-violence challenges would also have failed. The single breach relied on concerning Artan Muca did not show that the assurances in these cases would be breached.
7. The challenge based on a 35-year parole review period would also have failed. Vinter v United Kingdom (2016) 63 EHRR 1 recognised a margin of appreciation and did not impose a fixed 25-year rule. The later decisions in TP v Hungary and Bancsok v Hungary did not justify treating 25 years as a binding benchmark. Pre-trial detention also counted towards the Albanian statutory period.
8. The applications for judicial review were granted. Under section 104(5)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, the extradition orders were quashed. No further relief was required.

High Court (Administrative Court): appeals from decisions of the district judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court sending the cases to the Secretary of State were allowed. The extradition orders were quashed under section 104(5)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003.