Court rules arrest warrant unlawful

The First Hall of the Civil Court has upheld a constitutional application filed by British national Mark Stephens and revoked an arrest warrant issued against him at the request of the Maltese authorities.

Stephens filed his application against the Attorney General.

He claimed he had been arrested in Spain on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by the Magistrates' Court in Malta in the course of compilation proceedings against two other Britons who were in Malta.

Stephens had requested the revocation of the arrest warrant but this request was denied by the Magistrates' Court.

In his application Stephens declared he had been arrested in Spain on the basis of the arrest warrant issued by the authorities at the request of the Attorney General who had based it on the European Convention regulating extradition.

The arrest was not lawful, applicant claimed, for the Maltese courts did not have jurisdiction over the alleged offences which had occurred outside of Malta. Furthermore, Stephens submitted that there was no court established in terms of the Convention to examine the legality of his arrest.

Stephens therefore asked the court to declare that the arrest warrant had violated his fundamental human rights and to provide him with compensation.

Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri noted in his judgment that the courts had issued the arrest warrant in order for Stephens to answer to charges of conspiracy in the importation of or trafficking in drugs in terms of law.

The European Convention of Human Rights provided that no person could be deprived of liberty in an arbitrary fashion.

One had therefore to examine whether the arrest warrant issued by the Maltese courts was in conformity with the law and whether the courts had the jurisdiction to issue the warrant.

The law governing dangerous drugs established that the Maltese courts had jurisdiction over every person in connection with the crime of importation of drugs, even if the crime was committed overseas. The law therefore applied to every person, even if such person was not a Maltese citizen and did not reside in the country.

The courts had therefore jurisdiction over Stephens' case.

The court then proceeded to examine Stephens' submission that the jurisdiction of the Maltese courts was limited as the compilation proceedings had been concluded when the arrest warrant was issued.

According to Stephens the courts could not supersede the terms of the remittal of the case and could not therefore order the arrest of Stephens to face charges of association in the importation of drugs.

As a result, Stephens submitted that the arrest warrant was null and void as the court had acted ultra vires its powers.

Mr Justice Cuschieri noted that the law was very clear on this issue. The Magistrates' Court could only hear the witnesses indicated in the terms of the remittal and it could not continue the compilation proceedings beyond the terms of the remittal.

The court was of the opinion that the function of the Magistrates' Court ended at the close of the compilation proceedings and in the remittal stage the only function of the court was that of hearing the evidence produced by the prosecution and of appointing experts to conserve the evidence.

At that stage the Magistrates' Court could not order the arrest of a person involved in the case to answer to charges against him.

The case would be different were the arrest to be ordered in connection with a witness for the prosecution.

As a result, the arrest warrant, as issued, exceeded the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court at the remittal stage and was therefore in violation of Stephens' fundamental human rights.

Mr Justice Cuschieri added that Stephens had submitted that his arrest was illegal as there was no court to examine the validity of his arrest.

The Criminal Code provided that when a person was arrested on grounds other than those on which he was charged before the courts such a person could apply to the Magistrates' Court for freedom from arrest. Such an application had to be appointed for hearing and treated with urgency.

The court found in favour of Stephens and ruled that he did not have the same remedy at law as was available to the prosecution.

In conclusion, the court ruled that while the Magistrates' Court had jurisdiction over Stephens in respect of the crimes of association in the importation of drugs, the arrest warrant had not been issued in accordance with the law.

Stephens was awarded compensation of Lm250.