A court has thrown out a constitutional bid by a man contesting his extradition to the United States where he is wanted by the FBI for allegedly selling malware on the dark web.
Judgment was delivered on Thursday in proceedings filed by Daniel Joe Meli, a 27-year old check-in agent targeted by an extradition request by US authorities for his alleged illegal dealings on the dark web between December 2012 and June 2022.
When first arraigned, he consented to the extradition invoking the rule of speciality, meaning that he could only face prosecution for the offences mentioned in the extradition request. But subsequently, assisted by new lawyers, Meli appealed the Magistrate’s decision, arguing that the first court should have assured itself that he was in a sufficiently sound state of mind when consenting to extradition.
That appeal was dismissed and Meli filed constitutional proceedings. His lawyers summoned a long line of medical professionals who described Meli as “very bright” but suffering from “great social anxiety” and “very low self esteem.” His psychological problems became worse when he was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis.
Those documented mental health issues, coupled with a long history of drug abuse, led his lawyers to argue that it was doubtful whether Meli had fully understood what he was consenting to and the implications of that decision. They argued that his right to a fair hearing was breached because the court of appeal did not assess fresh evidence which would have shed light on his mental state when consenting to the extradition.
On Thursday the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, presided over by Madam Justice Doreen Clarke, said that the provisions of the European Convention and the Maltese Constitution on the right to a fair trial were only applicable when the defendant faced criminal charges.
In extradition proceedings, the requested person was not charged with a criminal offence.
The court observed that Maltese caselaw on the applicability of the articles on the right to a fair trial was not “completely uniform.” But most decisions handed down by Maltese courts and certainly more recent judgments, said that those articles did not apply in extradition proceedings.
Referring to European Court caselaw, the judge observed that there was only one exception to the rule and that was when there was a risk that the requested person would suffer a “flagrant denial of a fair trial” if sent back to the requesting state.
In this case, Meli did not allege that such a risk existed if he were to be extradited to the US.
The State Advocate and Attorney General also raised the plea that Meli lacked victim status. A person claiming that his rights were breached must prove to have victim status. In this case, Meli filed an appeal against the decision allowing the extradition even though the law did not allow such an appeal when he had consented to the extradition. And moreover, the court of appeal heard his case. Irrespectively of what the law stated, Meli appealed and thus, in the circumstances it could not be said that he was directly or indirectly impacted by the article of the Extradition Act that did not provide for such appeal. Since he was not impacted, it could not be argued that he had victim status, said the court, upholding the respondents’ pleas and rejecting Meli’s claims.