Extradition proceedings against a Maltese man wanted by Italian authorities to face drug trafficking charges have faltered on account of “incomplete” documentary information presented by the prosecution.

Judgment was delivered on Thursday morning against John Spiteri, a 56-year-old suspected drug trafficker from Qrendi, who was arrested and arraigned earlier in June after being targeted by a European Arrest Warrant.

An alert on the Schengen Information System had originally been flagged on December 15 upon a request by the Tribunale di Catania, Sezione del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari. 

That alert followed a European Arrest Warrant issued four days before by the same Italian authority against Spiteri, who is wanted in Sicily to face charges of conspiracy linked to a major trans-European drug trafficking operation.

Following his arraignment on June 11, Spiteri was remanded in custody where he remained while his extradition hearing continued, reaching judgment stage on Thursday. 

When delivering judgment, the court, presided over by magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech, observed that one of the necessary documents was the certificate issued by the Attorney General.

In this case, the AG had certified the alert which, in terms of law, is accompanied by a Form A.

That Form A contains supplementary information concerning the requested person, the offences for which he is wanted, and other necessary details which are essential for the court to reach its decision.

However, in this case, the prosecution had presented in court an “incomplete” document, since it produced the alert without the relative Form A. 

The EAW itself, in its original Italian version as well as its English translation, were presented as “separate and distinct” from the alert.

But the court was bound to base its decision on the documentation certified by the AG, observed Magistrate Frendo Dimech.

Since, in this case, the AG had certified the alert and since that alert was subsequently presented in court by the prosecution in “incomplete” form, the court lacked the necessary information upon which to decide the extradition request.

The alert alone simply indicated the particulars of the requested person, namely Spiteri, “in an immensely scanty manner”, and this was hardly relevant to the court.

Such “incomplete” document could not even enable the court to determine the nature of the offences concerned.

In fact, the alert referred to “drug offences” whereas the EAW mentioned “participation in a criminal organisation” and “illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs”.

The two-page “covering” document presented by the prosecution did not even mention the authority requesting the extradition nor the date when the EAW was issued, denying the court the “moral certainty” as to whether the alert and the EAW concerned the same alleged wrongdoing. 

The necessary information would have been included in the Form A, attached to the alert which was certified by the AG.

But that Form A never made it to court. 

In light of such circumstances, the court could not determine whether Spiteri was wanted for an extraditable offence, the first hurdle to be overcome in extradition proceedings.

And less still could it determine whether there existed any bars to extradition, observed the court, declaring that it could not pronounce itself upon the extradition request.

The AG has three days within which to file an appeal and declare whether it consented to Spiteri’s release from custody. 

Lawyers Franco Debono, Charles Mercieca and Francesca Zarb were counsel to Spiteri. 

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.