Man loses appeal in extradition case

The Constitutional Court yesterday dismissed an appeal filed by Mark Charles Stephens from a judgment delivered last June by the First Hall of the Civil Court.

In his constitutional application, Mr Stephens had claimed he had been illegally arrested and detained in Spain following an illegal request and illegal arrest warrant issued by the Maltese authorities.

Mr Stephens, who was represented in the local proceedings by lawyer Joseph Brincat, asked the court to declare that his arrest, carried out for the purposes of his extradition to Malta, was illegal as the established procedures had not been followed. He further claimed that his arrest was in violation of his fundamental human rights and he requested the court to order the revocation of the arrest warrant.

The First Hall of the Civil Court last June dismissed Mr Stephens' application.

The first court heard that in April 2004 the Magistrates Court had issued an arrest warrant against him. This order was issued during the compilation proceedings of two other persons who were charged with crimes connected with drug trafficking.

The Spanish authorities were informed of this arrest warrant and a request for Mr Stephens' extradition to Malta had been filed.

In June 2004, the Spanish courts had ordered the commencement of extradition proceedings and Mr Stephens was arrested and detained. He was later released on bail.

In November 2004, the First Hall of the Civil Court had ruled that the arrest warrant issued by the local authorities was illegal as it could not have been issued by the Magistrates' Court when the records of the case were sent to the Attorney General's Office.

Later that month, the Constitutional Court had confirmed that the arrest warrant was null and void because the warrant could not have been issued by the Magistrates Court while compiling evidence.

Following the judgment by the Constitutional Court, the Magistrates' Court had issued an arrest warrant against Mr Stephens in terms of another section of the Criminal Code. Mr Stephens was again arrested in Madrid and the Spanish courts ordered the continuation of his extradition proceedings to Malta.

Then, last June, the First Hall of the Civil Court dismissed Mr Stephens' claim that his fundamental human rights had been violated.

The first court ruled that it did not result that the arrest warrant issued in November 2004 was illegal. Mr Stephens appealed from this judgment to the Constitutional Court composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti.

In yesterday's judgment, the appellate court pointed out that Mr Stephens' appeal was based on his submission that when the Constitutional Court, in November 2004, declared that the arrest warrant issued in February 2004 was null, such declaration had terminated the extradition proceedings against him. His submission was that such proceedings were founded on the arrest warrant. He further claimed that new extradition proceedings had to be filed against him with a new request and that the original proceedings could not be continued.

Furthermore, Mr Stephens submitted that in June 2004, a new law had come into effect regulating extradition proceedings between Malta and Spain. As a result, the arrest warrant issued in November 2004 (following the judgment of the Constitutional Court) ought to have been issued in terms of the new law.

The Attorney General pleaded that the November 2004 judgment did not affect the request and the proceedings for extradition that had commenced prior to June 2004. The 2004 judgment only affected the arrest warrant and the extradition proceedings against Mr Stephens were to be regulated by the European Convention on Extradition.

The Constitutional Court pointed out yesterday that the basis for any extradition proceedings was the request made by one country to another for the return of an individual. It was not the arrest warrant that formed the basis of extradition proceedings. In this case, the arrest warrant in terms of Maltese law was a document that supported the request for extradition and this request had a separate and distinct existence to the supporting documents that could be produced.

No evidence had been forthcoming to show that the state of Malta had, after the November 2004 constitutional judgment, withdrawn or ceded its request already made to the Spanish authorities for Mr Stephens' extradition to Malta. The Constitutional Court, therefore, declared that it had no hesitation in finding that the nullity of the arrest warrant did not affect the existence of the extradition proceedings already pending.

The Constitutional Court also ruled against Mr Stephens' submission that a new arrest warrant issued after November 2004 had to comply with the June 2004 law regulating extradition. This law expressly provided that where a request for extradition was made prior to the coming into force of the law then the applicable law was that in force at the time the request for extradition had been made. This meant that once Malta's request for extradition had been made in terms of the European Convention on Extradition and the request was still pending in June 2004, then the requirements of this convention had to apply.

In its judgment, the Constitutional Court declared it had to decide whether the new arrest warrant issued against Mr Stephens satisfied the requirements of this convention. It declared that there was absolutely nothing in the November 2004 arrest warrant that in any manner violated the provisions of the convention in question.

The court therefore dismissed Mr Stephens' appeal.