FATJOHN KAPRI AGAINST HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE, Re IN THE APPLICATION BY (Albania)

[1] In terms of Macklin v HM Advocate [2013] HCJAC 41 , leave to appeal to the United Kingdom Supreme Court should only be granted by this court if the applicant is able to identify a potential error of law by this court on a compatibility, or in this case devolution, issue and the point is one of general public importance. Since the general issue is whether the applicant will obtain a Convention compliant fair trial in Albania, the first of these requirements is met. However, the court does not consider that the case now raises any point of general public importance.

[5] The applicant accepted that there was no evidence particular to his case. What was argued on his behalf had to apply equally to anyone who was being extradited to Albania. That being so, his case was periled on the general proposition that judicial corruption was so widespread that no one ought to be extradited to Albania. In the end, the result was that the evidence put before the court failed to provide substantial grounds for believing that this might be the position.

[6] The applicant did not fail in his appeal as a consequence of any application of exclusionary rules of evidence, or as a consequence of the application of a particular standard of proof. Rather, the court’s conclusion was based upon the exercise of its judgment as to the proper weight to be attached to the evidence heard, and upon the absence of any evidence to substantiate the applicant’s central proposition.

[7] A decision of this nature cannot be said to be a matter of general public importance such as would be suitable for adjudication by the United Kingdom Supreme Court. The allegation that this court applied too high a standard does not arise, the question having been superseded by the nature of the evidence ultimately led. In short, this is a case in which the court dealt with the matter on the evidence led before it and made findings in fact accordingly.