Judge to decide on bail for man fighting extradition over discovery of 10 tonne cannabis shipment

A judge is to decree later this month on a request for an interim measure which would grant bail to Paul Attard, who is facing extradition proceedings initiated at the request of the Italian authorities who want him to face smuggling charges there.

Attard’s lawyers are arguing that the Extradition Act created an anomalous situation where if a request for a person’s extradition is denied by the court of Magistrates and the Attorney General then files an appeal, the person is rearrested, despite having been granted bail.

“He should be released on bail because his right to family life is already being breached before he is extradited,” argued lawyer Arthur Azzopardi, appearing for Attard together with lawyer Franco Debono, explaining why an interim measure was being requested.

Azzopardi told Mr Justice Francesco Depasquale that Attard would be exhibiting legal opinions in the form of affidavits made by Italian lawyers about EU law and the right to family life. The defence would also be summoning a number of high-ranking police officers and permanent secretaries to testify, he said.

Lawyer Maurizio Cordina, for the Office of the State Advocate, informed the judge that he would be making submissions on the admissibility and relevance of this evidence. The court gave the lawyers three weeks to present a note detailing these reasons.

Defence requests interim measure

The judge also heard submissions on the interim measure requested by the defence, through which Attard would be released on bail.

Attard’s lawyers argued that his behaviour during the 60 days he had spent on bail was “exemplary.”

Lawyer George Camilleri, appearing for the Office of the Attorney General agreed but pointed out that judge Giovanni Grixti had previously denied Attard’s request for an interim measure. “If he behaved whilst on bail, it was in his interests” added Camilleri.

Even if he tried to abscond, the criminal proceedings against him in Italy could still continue in his absence, as long as his Italian lawyer was present, argued Azzopardi, saying that it was up to the State to prove the necessity of keeping him in custody, pointing to EU case law from 1969 which established this principle.

“Attard is still here,” pointed out the lawyer. “The case will take the time it needs to be decided, but should he be held under arrest until then? His family and monetary ties are all in Malta. He is not accused of breach of bail,” argued Azzopardi.

Cordina also made submissions, arguing that it could not be discounted that Attard’s judicial position was defined by criminal proceedings, which dealt with very serious charges relating to 10 tonnes of marijuana being found on a boat belonging to him.

He argued that the requirements for an interim measure were not present – Attard was being detained on the order of a court after being sentenced, the Constitution and the European Convention establish the exceptions to the right to liberty and one of these exceptions applied to Attard. “We have here, in black on white, article 34 of the Constitution which authorises the detention of a person awaiting extradition.”

He said the Italian authorities had provided detailed information which pointed to Attard, despite the ship not belonging to him “on paper.” All the crew members had pointed to Attard being the owner, added the lawyer.

Lawyer Franco Debono insisted that the evidence tying Attard to the ship was “weak”.

Two magistrates had denied the EAW, and when it had come before Mr Justice Aaron Bugeja, it was "unfortunately" upheld, he said.

The lawyer submitted that the article of the law being cited by the prosecution was being misused to mean that bail could not be granted in extradition cases, describing it as a “non sequitur of galactic proportions.”

This did not mean that the request for an interim measure should be dismissed, Debono said.

In the meantime, Attard had also filed a constitutional case before judge Audrey Demicoli arguing that if he was sent back, it would breach his fundamental rights.

The law sought to prevent injustice, said the lawyer, arguing that his client was suffering irremediable prejudice by being held in prison without first being convicted. The defence was confident that Attard would be exonerated, he added.

“If this court eventually decides in our favour, why should he have been held in jail until then? He will have lost a part of his life.”

Debono pointed out that Attard could have easily fled whilst in Libya.

“He ended up in prison, not because he broke the law…he was granted bail several times, and it was only revoked, not because he breached it but because the law arbitrarily prevents the granting of bail whilst undergoing extradition proceedings.”

Azzopardi said Ch 276 created the anomalous situation where if a person’s extradition is denied by the court of magistrates and the AG appeals, he must still be arrested.

He should be released on bail, said the lawyer, because his right to family life was “already being breached before he is extradited,” he said, reiterating the request for an interim measure.

The court adjourned the case till later this month for a decree on the request for an interim measure. The case will continue in February.