A Maltese man is making a final bid against his extradition to the US to face prosecution for selling malware on the dark web.
Daniel Joe Meli, 27, from Żabbar, is in custody in Corradino Correctional Centre but is wanted by the FBI over the sale of illegal malware on the dark web between December 2012 and June 2022.
Last week the criminal courts ruled that he should be extradited, dismissing claims that his poor mental health had not been taken into account.
On Monday he took his legal battle a step further by filing a constitutional case claiming the appeals court had breached his rights to a fair hearing when deciding against him.
The case began on December 12 last year, when a Grand Jury in Georgia issued a bill of indictment against the Maltese man.
A month later, on January 22, the US embassy in Malta sent a ‘Note Verbal’ to the Foreign Affairs Ministry seeking Meli’s extradition.
The Justice Minister subsequently granted authorization which kickstarted proceedings in terms of the Extradition Act.
Meli was targeted by two arrest warrants issued by two different magistrates, the first ordering investigations for alleged computer misuse and the second for the suspect’s extradition.
When first escorted before the Magistrates’ Court in February, Meli consented to the extradition.
But a few days later, whilst in custody facing his fate, Meli, assisted by new lawyers, filed an appeal to reverse the extradition order, arguing that he had a history of mental health issues which the court had not taken into consideration.
Meli claimed that he had been admitted to Mater Dei and Mount Carmel Hospitals several times.
His lawyers argued that it was doubtful whether Meli’s consent to the extradition could be truly considered voluntary.
However, the Court of Criminal Appeal turned down that argument, confirming Meli’s extradition whilst remanding him in custody.
The extradition would go ahead unless Meli filed a separate case before the constitutional courts, challenging the criminal courts’ decisions on the basis of an alleged breach of fundamental rights.
'Breach of rights'
On Monday, Meli’s lawyers took that course of action by means of an application filed before the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction arguing that the judge presiding over the appeal was bound to assess the fresh evidence which the defence wanted to produce to support his mental health claim.
They argued that even the lawyer representing the Attorney General’s Office had agreed that such evidence was also in the prosecution’s interest and stated that the mental health issue was not taken “lightly at all.”
On the day Meli was arraigned, he had not taken his prescribed medication and was therefore not in the right mental condition to give his full and proper consent, argued his lawyers.
The Extradition Act itself allowed for the production of fresh evidence at appeal stage so as to ensure that nothing was missing.
That provision was intended precisely to make sure full respect of the wanted person’s rights since extradition was a “very serious matter.”
But in this case, the court of appeal had “washed its hands” of its duties although the law spoke most clearly, basing itself on the written records and carrying out a purely paper-based exercise.
The court also shielded itself behind the generally applicable principle that the court of appeal did not normally disturb the conclusions of the first court.
Then the court quoted a judgment delivered in another extradition case where the court of appeal had actually allowed fresh evidence to be put forward.
The outcome of that purely document-based exercise was a “fait accompli.”
All this breached Meli’s fundamental right to a fair hearing, argued his lawyers requesting the court to quash both decisions authorizing the extradition and to place the applicant in the position prior to those decisions.
They also requested the court to provide all necessary measures to ensure that Meli’s fundamental rights were safeguarded.
Lawyers Arthur Azzopardi and Franco Debono signed the application.