CO/5587/2002 
Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 509 Admin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION  
DIVISIONAL COURT
In the matter of an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum and in the matter of the Extradition Act 1989

Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2 

Thursday, 6 March 2003
 B E F O R E:

LADY JUSTICE HALE 

MR JUSTICE MOSES 
  
- - - - - - -

ARTAN BRAHJA
(APPLICANT)

-v- 

THE GOVERNOR OF H.M PRISON BRIXTON

THE GOVERNMENT OF ITALY 
(RESPONDENTS) 
 - - - - - - -
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
 - - - - - - -
MR J HARDY appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MISS C DOBBIN appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
 - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T 
(Approved) 
 - - - - - - -
Crown copyright©
Judgment 

1.	LADY JUSTICE HALE:  This application for habeas corpus challenges the applicant's detention under a committal order made by District Judge Anthony Evans in the Bow Street Magistrates' Court on 15 October 2002.  The only issue is whether the district judge was entitled to find that the Italian Government had proved that the applicant is the person accused in their extradition request.  It is common ground that the burden of proof is on the Italian Government and that the standard is the criminal standard; equally, that the district judge gave himself a correct direction in that respect.  
2.	The background facts are as follows.  On 26 February 2002, Detective Sergeant Flood and Detective Sergeant Loudon arrested the applicant as he left Dene Court, Cambridge Road, London W7.  He was asked his name and replied, "Artan Brahja".  He was asked his date of birth and he replied, "22 August".  He gave no year.  They took possession of a national insurance number card and an Inland Revenue temporary registration card and a provisional driving licence.  The driving licence has a photograph upon it which, it is accepted, bears a striking resemblance to the applicant.  The driving licence gives the name "Altan Brahza".  It gives the date of birth as 21 August 1970.  It gives the place of birth as Kosovo.  The police officers on that occasion were acting under a warrant issued by the Bow Street Magistrates' Court in response to an extradition request from the Government of Albania where the person sought was said to have been convicted of serious offences connected with robbery and firearms.  The papers submitted with that request included an Albanian birth certificate that gave the name of "Artan Brahja", the date of birth as 22 August 1974 and the place of birth as Tirana which is in Albania and not in Kosovo.  
3.	On 17 July 2002, the applicant was discharged by the Bow Street Magistrates' Court on the basis that the Albanian request contained insufficient evidence that the applicant was then unlawfully at large.  The Applicant did not then, and does not now, dispute that he was the person named in the Albanian request.  Immediately on his discharge, he was arrested again under a different warrant issued in response to an extradition request from the Government of Italy for offences connected with trafficking very large quantities of cannabis from Albania to Italy for sale there and in England.  On that arrest he volunteered the name Altan Brahja, and the date of birth, 22 August 1974.  
4.	The Italian request relates to one Altan Brahja known as "Zoni", said to be born on 12 August 1970 in Peje, Kosovo, resident at one of two addresses in London.  One of those addresses was the address at Dene Court, Cambridge Road, London W7.  The allegations made are of a conspiracy between various people based in Italy, and two people, at least, based here, to import large quantities of cannabis from Albania to Italy and then for sale onwards.  Knowledge of the plot is based partly on tapping telephone calls from Italy to two people, one of them named as Altan Brahja known as "Zoni" here.  On 2 June 2001, one of the alleged conspirators flew to London and met those two people.  The British police were involved in following them to an address in Finchley.  The point is made that the car identified with the Altan Brahja who was observed then was a Chrysler sports car, whereas the car identified with the Altan Brahja arrested in February was a Ford, albeit both with an "R" registration number.  After that visit on 2 June there were further telephone calls consistent with the plot.  Three consignments had already been sent, and then on 14 June 2001, in Italy, a further consignment was intercepted.  
5.	The applicant says that the Government of Italy have not proved to the requisite standard that he is the man they seek.  In essence, he argues that although the name is much the same and the address is the same, the date of birth, in 1970, which they have given, is different from the date of birth in the Albanian certificate.  The place of birth is aslo different.  The Albanian information about its own citizens is much more likely to be reliable than is that of Italy.  
6.	The respondent says that the district judge was entitled to find as he did.  The name given on arrest was the same as that in the warrant.  The address was that supplied by the Italian authorities.  The driving licence found on him gave that name.  The driving licence gave a date of birth which was in the same year as that given by the Italian authorities, and it gave Kosovo as the place of birth.  The inference, it is argued, is virtually inescapable -- that this was the driving licence used by the applicant and that the information given to the United Kingdom authorities for the purpose of obtaining that driving licence was strikingly similar to the information supplied by the Italian authorities in seeking to connect their request to this man.  
7.	In my judgment, the district judge was entirely entitled to reach the conclusion that he did -- that the man who is the applicant before us is indeed the self same man who is sought in this request by the Italian authorities, and the discrepancies involved do not displace in any way that conclusion, and so I would refuse this application.
8.	MR JUSTICE MOSES:  So would I.
9.	MR HARDY:  My Lady, there is only one application and it is not for leave, it is for assessment. 
10.	LADY JUSTICE HALE:  I believe you are entitled to your assessment.  Thank you both very much.