Daniel Meli judge begins handing down judgement – before closing arguments

In an unusual turn of events in court Friday, a judge erroneously began reading his judgment before the Attorney General or defence had delivered closing arguments in the appeal over the blocked extradition of hacker Daniel Meli.

Meli is wanted by US authorities to face cybercrime charges in connection with the sale of computer malware.

He successfully battled extradition charges, but the Attorney General (AG) filed an appeal against that decision.

Mr Justice Giovanni Grixti began reading his judgement on the case when he was interrupted by AG lawyer Daphne Baldacchino, who pointed out that Friday's sitting was for final submissions, not the judgement.

Judgement on the case is due on Tuesday.

The judge initially objected to Baldacchino’s interruption, insisting he would hand down his decision, before checking the minutes and saying: “You’re right.”

Defence lawyer Lennox Vella requested the sitting be postponed but the AG strongly objected, saying the sitting had been scheduled a while ago.

“There is no need to adjourn the sitting. The only victim in this case is myself because I’ve written the judgement,” Grixti said.

The AG lawyers highlighted that delays to the case were not the fault of their office, adding the case was under the media spotlight.

Defence lawyer Franco Debono observed the defence was not to blame for the delays either, saying the law as it stood had been “undesirable” and the state had intervened.

He was referring to the amendments to the law that allowed Meli to contest his extradition afresh after having initially consented to it.

The 28-year-old from Żabbar is wanted by US authorities for his alleged dealings on the dark web between December 2012 and June 2022. The malware, a remote access trojan or RAT, is used to gain access to computers and servers and control their operation.

He was first arrested in February 2024 in a coordinated operation by the Malta police and the Office of the Attorney General, supported by the FBI and the US Justice Department.

He has been fighting his extradition to the US after having initially consented to it.

Meli filed an appeal and later a constitutional case. The law was eventually amended to allow for a change of mind, and the case started from scratch.

On Friday morning, Debono stressed that his client has rights and was availing himself of the new amendments, adding that “while the law was being brought up to standard our client was under arrest”.

New witnesses

AG lawyer Sean Xerri De Caro insisted on summoning a witness, but the court warned against holding it in “contempt”. The AG lawyers highlighted that these were not normal proceedings and underlined that the law allows both the AG and the defence to present new evidence, even at the appeal stage.

“In this case, the court is only deciding whether a person is going to be extradited or otherwise,” Xerri De Caro said, adding the AG in extradition proceedings is not a prosecutor, but the ‘Central Authority’ and an extension of the state.

He underlined the need to uphold local laws and obligations emerging from international treaties including the treaty between Malta and the US and the treaty between the EU and the US.

The lawyer then moved to highlight shortcomings by the Court of Committal – the court of magistrates in extradition proceedings – and insisted that the documents presented were presented by Superintendent Mario Cuschieri and inspector Robinson Mifsud under oath.

“That oath confirms their authenticity,” Xerri De Caro argued. He underlined that the Central Authority should not suffer shortcomings by the court.

Missing minutes

The lawyer also highlighted instances where the court did not note down in the minutes of the sittings certain decisions, including when the AG offered the appointment of an expert to show the court the contents of a pen drive compiled by an FBI agent, including liaising with the FBI so the malware would not open on the expert’s computer.

According to the prosecution, this was not put in the minutes of the sitting and was a shortcoming by the Court of Magistrates.

AG lawyer Baldacchino referred to when Maria Baldacchino Bonnici from the foreign affairs ministry took the stand and the court interrupted her testimony, saying it did not want “duplicate documents” in the records of the case. Again, this was not in the minutes.

“We feel that an injustice is being made in our regard,” Baldacchino said.

Debono hit back that the AG’s final submissions were an “attack” on the way the magistrate presiding the Court of Committal operated. He argued that one could obtain the minutes during or after each sitting and that the deputy registrar is responsible.

“Our client suffered the most until the law was amended; he was under arrest,” Debono said, insisting the AG had enough time to bring evidence forward.

The lawyer invited the court to uphold the decision by the court of first instance and said that there was “a clear reason as to why the extradition request had been denied”.

The case was adjourned to next week.

Mr Justice Giovanni Grixti presided over the court.

AG lawyers Sean Xerri De Caro, Daphne Baldacchino and Maria Zerafa Le-Gros appeared as the Central Authority.

Lawyers Franco Debono, Lennox Vella and Arthur Azzopardi appeared for Meli.