Bushi v Government of Albania

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: This is an application on behalf of the applicant, Petrit Bushi, for an adjournment of his appeal which has been listed today for some time on the grounds that so far the solicitors acting for him have been unable to contact him in a way which would enable him to sign the relevant legal aid papers at least until last week. The legal aid papers, it is said, are now signed but no legal aid has yet been granted.

We have looked at all the papers in this case and the helpful chronology provided by Mr Nasim, who has appeared this morning on behalf of the applicant, setting out a particular chronology which he seeks to support his application for an adjournment, which tells the sorry story that since 20th June 2007 -- or perhaps, to be more exact, 26th July 2007, which is when the Secretary of State ordered the applicant's extradition -- there is said to have been a number of attempts to visit the applicant in prison. Each request has been rejected on the basis that visits were fully booked. There are ways in which a visit in circumstances such as the present can be secured. None of those appear to have been adopted.

There is in our judgment no reason for delaying the hearing of this appeal and we have not heard anything to suggest that there is any prospect of success on the merits and, accordingly, we consider that we must dispose of the appeal today.

What is your consequent application, Mr Nasim?

MR NASIM: My Lord, there is not much more I can add if the substantive hearing is going to take place today, particularly in regard of the limited information. It puts me in a difficult position.

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: I understand that, Mr Nasim.

MR NASIM: My Lord, in the circumstances, may I seek a number of days within which to put in written submissions at least?

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: No. The matter must be dealt with today. It has been listed for today. If there was to be a real application for an adjournment on the basis of difficulties which have arisen, that application should have been made before today.

MR NASIM: My Lord, I know there was a written application last week by those instructing me.

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: That was too late. I think those who deal with extradition cases should appreciate that, save in cases where there does appear to be a glimmer of light for the applicant, it is unlikely that any delay will be permitted in a hearing and there is nothing on the material here which would suggest there is a glimmer of light for the appellant.

MR NASIM: My Lord, in those circumstances, I am somewhat conscious I do not have anyone behind me to take further instructions. My eventual application would be for you to consider the appeal on the papers, at least the submissions made by defence counsel who acted for Mr Bushi. I am not sure whether there is a copy of his skeleton argument which is in the court file.

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: Well, we can glean the nature of the dispute from the judgment of the District Judge.

MR NASIM: My Lord, I can provide a copy of that skeleton. I have a copy on file.

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: How do you suggest we dispose of this, Mr Hines?

MR HINES: I would suggest you dismiss the appeal under section 103(4).

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: On the grounds that...?

MR HINES: On the ground that no arguable matter has been put before the court.

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: That is the question, Mr Nasim.

MR NASIM: My Lord, I would still ask that at least the skeleton argument of defence counsel be considered before a decision is reached.

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: Thank you very much, Mr Nasim.

Having rejected the application for an adjournment, we then have to determine the application itself. The application relates to the findings and conclusions of the Deputy Senior District Judge on 20th June 2007, in which she concluded that the matter must go to the Secretary of State for his decision, the matter being a request by the Republic of Albania for the arrest of this applicant, which was issued by the District Court on 26th October 2006. The applicant was arrested on 4th January 2007 pursuant to that warrant. A certificate was issued by the Secretary of State under section 70 of the Extradition Act 2003, dated 5th March 2007. The Republic of Albania seeks the return of the applicant as a man convicted in his absence of manslaughter and sentenced to six years' imprisonment. The sentence was appealed on behalf of the applicant but the appeal was rejected.

There were a number of grounds upon which the applicant resisted the application for his return. First, he is not the person whose extradition is requested but his brother. The Deputy Senior District Judge heard evidence firstly in relation to fingerprints, showing that the fingerprint of the applicant was identical with the fingerprint of the person who had been arrested and ultimately convicted of manslaughter, but in support of that there was also evidence which clearly identified him, which was that he was at the time of his arrest living with a woman who was undoubtedly the wife of Petrit Bushi. She accepted, when the police attended, that not only was she the wife of Petrit Bushi but she was living with him at that address, that is living with the applicant. It is not surprising in those circumstances that the District Judge took the view that there was no doubt about the identity of the applicant.

The second ground relates to the passage of time but this is a case where the applicant had absconded from Albania and gone to ground in this country in circumstances where it would appear that he was prepared to disguise his identity. In those circumstances, and bearing in mind other matters which the Deputy District Judge took into account, it is again not surprising that she considered the passage of time was not a basis upon which she could order his discharge.

There was then an argument that he was at risk on his return of being caught up in a blood feud which would result in there being a real risk to his life. The Deputy Senior District Judge considered that material and rejected that argument.

The circumstances here, it seems to us, make it plain that there is on the material before us simply no possible argument that the Deputy District Judge was in error in any of the conclusions which he came to in rejecting the arguments of the applicant against ordering his return and in those circumstances this application must fail.

MR HINES: The only application in fact I have is to thank the court and those present in court for allowing me to go ahead.

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: Thank you, Mr Nasim. I am sorry you have been put in such a difficult position. Thank you for the help you have provided.