Judge orders extradition proceedings against suspected Ndrangheta drug smuggler to start again

The Court of Criminal Appeal has ruled that the decision to reject the extradition case against suspected drug smuggler John Spiteri, who is wanted by the Italian judicial authorities is null, sending the case back to the court of magistrates for a retrial.

The decision was handed down this morning by Mr. Justice Giovanni Grixti in an appeal filed by the Attorney General to last month’s decision to reject the extradition request on the grounds that the documentation filed by the prosecution was incomplete. 

The Attorney General had filed the appeal after a court declined to uphold a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued against Spiteri, who is wanted for prosecution in Italy on organised crime and drug smuggling charges, on the grounds that the required documentation that usually accompanies EAWs had not been filed in court.

In a sitting in June, the Court of Magistrates had stopped the Attorney General from exhibiting the remaining 477 pages of documentation, in view of the fact that it had arrived at too late a stage in the proceedings and should have been exhibited by means of a note, or on oath, by the prosecution.

In December 2021, Italian police had issued a European Arrest Warrant for Spiteri, a Maltese citizen, after a four-year investigation into a drug trafficking ring, which culminated in raids on several properties in Italy.

Some 430kg of cannabis, cannabis resin and cocaine were reportedly seized by the Italian Guardia di Finanza during the raids which largely targeted individuals from known mafia families.

But the proceedings had been declared null in June, after Spiteri’s lawyers, Lawyers Franco Debono, Charles Mercieca and Francesca Zarb, had successfully attacked the validity of the Schengen Information System (SIS) alert attached to the EAW.

The AG had subsequently filed an appeal, arguing that the Court of Magistrates had failed to follow the procedure laid down in the Extradition (Designated Foreign Countries) Order and had “decided to hear the proceedings in a manner contrary to the spirit of the same law that regulates proceedings triggered by an EAW.”

In the appeal application, the Attorney General contended that the magistrate had gone beyond the applicable legal requirements and reached a conclusion, which included the release of the extradant which, the AG argued, found no comfort in the applicable law.

Today's decision by the Court of Criminal Appeal praised the magistrate’s “clear and erudite exposition of the relevant part of a truly complex law which regulates part of the extradition of individuals under the  European Arrest Warrant.”

After examining a number of judgments in which similar issues were decided, the judge observed that “it was most relevant and therefore applicable to the particular circumstances of these cases where an order for further information could result in delays beyond the 60 day period within which extradition requests must be decided.”  

The judge stressed that this should not be interpreted as his court undermining the value or importance of any piece of documentation required for a valid SIS II alert, as this would serve to equip law enforcement with the information it required to proceed against the subject person. 

The court also agreed that it would be “more desirable” to have all the necessary information exhibited in court during the arraignment of the person to be extradited, but pointed out that once the person is arraigned, the rules of procedure laid out in the special legislation regulating such proceedings did not refer to the form which was missing in this case, and treated the SIS II alert as a European Arrest Warrant.

“From the point of view of procedural law, therefore, it follows that the court of referral’s decision was procedurally lacking, in that it denied the Prosecution’s request for extradition by basing its decision on the absence of a document which is not required for the filing of the intended procedure and therefore did not give the Prosecution the opportunity to state its case.

This brings with it the nullity of the judgement and consequently, the [request for a retrial] should be upheld.”

Lawyers Franco Debono, Charles Mercieca and Francesca Zarb are representing Spiteri.