A fugitive extradited to Malta from Croatia could not be found guilty of breaching bail because “failure to appear” when out on bail was not a criminal offence under Croatian law, a court has ruled. 

Vladimir Pajic, a 28-year-old Serbian national, had been granted bail while facing criminal proceedings over his alleged involvement in an armed robbery at a Naxxar apartment in November 2022.

But he vanished after last signing the bail book on October 21, 2023. 

He was subsequently arrested by Croatian police while trying to cross the border into Serbia and was charged before the courts in that country on the strength of a European Arrest Warrant issued by Maltese authorities who sought his extradition. 

Pajic was one of two aggressors who allegedly held up a Dutchman and a French woman at gun and knife point in Naxxar two years ago, making off with cash and other belongings worth over €2,000.

It later turned out that the female ‘victim’ was allegedly an accomplice, facilitating the crime.

The woman, Milica Kurcubic, was charged alongside Pajic and Victor Markovic and all three pleaded not guilty. 

But while proceedings are still ongoing over that episode, Pajic slipped out of the country. 

Following his arrest in Croatia, Pajic did not consent to extradition. 

The foreign court observed that the Maltese authorities wanted Pajic to face proceedings for aggravated theft, involvement in a criminal conspiracy and for breaching bail. 

However, the Croatian court observed that the request by the “Republic of Malta” was only “partially justified” because the offence of “failure to appear by a person released on bail…[did] not exist in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Croatia”. 

Consequently, Pajic was surrendered to Malta on the basis of the first two alleged crimes and not the breach of bail. 

But when hauled back before the Magistrates’ Court last month, Pajic was charged with breaching bail. 

His lawyers promptly voiced doubt over whether that charge was covered by the Croatian judgment - a copy of which was presented by the prosecution.

Presiding magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit appointed an expert to translate the document so that the matter could be clarified. 

On that occasion, Pajic was remanded in custody. 

The translation left no room for doubt. The Croatian court clearly stated that Pajic was not to be surrendered over the alleged breach of bail. 

Extracts from that decision were cited by Magistrate Stafrace Zammit when delivering judgment on Thursday.

“The Croatian court made it clear that since the offence of breaching a bail decree did not exist under Croatian law, then [the accused] could not be extradited and prosecuted for that offence in Malta, let alone be punished for that offence,” said the court.

However, the European Arrest Warrant was to remain in force with respect to the other crimes for which Pajic was facing proceedings before another Magistrate, namely the armed robbery.

“….it was to be ascertained that the accused is brought before that [other] court so that those proceedings may continue,” the magistrate concluded. 

Lawyers Shazoo Ghaznavi, Charlon Gouder and Jessica Formosa are defence counsel.