Xhelili v Republic of Albania [2015] EWHC 641 (Admin)

Case No CO/3544/2014[2015] EWHC 641 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Tuesday, 24 February 2015
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
LORD JUSTICE AIKENS
MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL
Between
FATMIR XHELILIClaimantv
Between
REPUBLIC OF ALBANIADefendant
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes ofWordWave International LimitedA Merrill Communications Company165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DYTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Ms Natasha Draycott (instructed by Kaim Todner) appeared for ClaimantMr James Stansfeld (instructed by the CPS) appeared for Defendant
J U D G M E N T
[1]MR JUSTICE POPPLEWELL: This is an appeal by Fatmir Xhelili under section 103 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the decision of District Judge Zani in the Westminster Magistrates' Court on 3 July 2013 to send Mr Xhelili's case to the Secretary of State for her to decide whether he should be extradited to his native Albania pursuant to a request for extradition by the respondent judicial authority. The Secretary of State ordered his extradition on 28 August 2014.[2]Miss Draycott has appeared for Mr Xhelili before us and has explained that the appeal will not be pursued and invites us to dismiss it. It would, in any event, have failed for the reasons which are set out in Mr Stansfeld's skeleton argument.[3]There is an issue over Mr Xhelili's mental health and Mr Stansfeld has undertaken, via the Home Office, to ensure that any relevant report comes to the attention of the Albanian authorities. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

LORD JUSTICE AIKENS: I agree. The appeal is to be dismissed. The reasoning of the appropriate judge below is entirely correct and we have no need to elaborate on it. For the reasons that he gives, which I would entirely adopt, this appeal is hopeless.

[5]There is, however, one matter which I wish to comment, which is mentioned in the ruling of District Judge Zani which he gave on 3 July 2014 at paragraph 41. There the judge states:
"The threshold in an Article 8 challenge is set very high and there would have to be 'striking and unusual facts' for such a challenge to succeed. The approach laid down in Norris v Government of USA [2010] UKSC [and I will give the reference when I correct the transcript] was followed in the decision in B v District Court of Trutnov and Another [2011] EWHC (Admin) [and I will give the page number when I correct the transcripts] wherein it was stated that circumstances where an Article 8 claim were likely to succeed would be 'rare', albeit it is correct to add that there appears to have been a softening of approach in a limited number of recent decisions of the Divisional Court. Furthermore in G v Poland [2013] QBD (Admin) a mother of two young children was extradited notwithstanding that she was their primary carer."
[6]Insofar as Judge Zani seems to suggest that there has been some kind of "policy decision" on the part of the Divisional Court to "a softening of approach" in relation to Article 8 claims, that, with great respect to the judge, is incorrect. The Divisional Court does and will follow loyally the guidelines and principles set out by the Supreme Court in Norris v USA (No 2) [2010] 2 AC 487 and the subsequent case of HH v Italy [2013] 1 AC 338.[7]There is no change of "policy" or "approach" on the part of the Divisional Court and all cases will be considered on their facts and in the light of the principles set out in those Supreme Court cases. Applied to this case the result is quite clear: the appeal must be dismissed.