Judge hears appeal filed against 'bewildering' extradition judgment

Lawyers defending a man against extradition to Lithuania have laid into a decision by the Court of Magistrates, which upheld the extradition request, describing its refusal to seek guidance from the European Court of Justice as 'bewildering.'

Madame Justice Edwina Grima heard submissions by both defence and prosecution this morning in the appeal filed by 44-year-old Maltese-Australian Angelo Spiteri.

Spiteri is facing extradition on accusations of having set up a false company in Vilnius, which would convince its victims to sign accommodation agreements with hotels, and after signing and receiving payment for this, deliberately fail to provide the service for which it had been paid.

Earlier this month, Magistrate Aaron Bugeja had upheld the extradition request, amongst other things holding that the Maltese legislator had intentionally omitted to transpose an article of European law which would allow Spiteri to serve any sentence he would be handed in Lithuania in a Maltese prison. Lithuanian prisons have been repeatedly criticised by human rights watchdogs for their inhumane conditions.

This morning, Spiteri's legal team - lawyers Jason Azzopardi, Kris Busietta and Patrick Valentino - told the court that the Court of Committal had “simply ignored its duty to apply the 13th Preamble to the Framework Decision of 2002 setting up the European Arrest Warrant.” 

“The appellant simply cannot fathom how the Court of Committal of a European country ...turned a Nelson’s eye to the human rights excesses, breaches and worse, which are the order of the day in Lithuania’s prisons,” reads the appeal application.

“It beggars belief, it is bewildering, how the first court said that it could not find a provision allowing it to make a reference to Strasbourg in the Legal Notice.”

He reminded the court that the Irish Supreme Court had blocked the surrender of Omagh bombing suspect Ian Campbell to Lithuania on these grounds in 2013, citing inhuman and degrading conditions in Lithuania's Soviet-style prisons.

Azzopardi went on, pointing out that there were no less than three reports of the Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), issued in 2001, 2009 and 2014.

“The situation has not changed. Prisoners spend 23 hours a day in their cells, with seven other inmates, enjoying 1.1 square metres of individual space. I would not even keep my dog in such a small space.”

Prisoners had to endure unsanitary conditions, and had no access to work, recreation or education, he added. The defence pointed to the recently published European Liberties Platform report, which showed that the Lithuanian prison system had been found guilty twice, as recently as last month, of breaching the European Convention on Human Rights.

“There is far more than a serious risk [that his fundamental rights will be breached], there is certainty.”

Azzopardi argued that the courts could not ignore the case law, the treaty and their duty to protect this right.

“How can the Maltese State be an accomplice, participant in the breaching of an individual's right to protection from cruel and inhuman treatment?” asked the lawyer. The Treaty on the Functioning of the EU obliged the court to a refer a matter to the ECJ in case of doubt.

He repeated that Malta holds the record for the least number of references to the ECJ for preliminary rulings, at just two. Cyprus, who joined the union with Malta, had made seven, and the average is around 20. Germany has made over 2,000, the court was told.

“I say with some sorrow that it appears that the office of the AG is not aware of our obligations as an EU member state.”

For the office of the Attorney General, lawyer Vincienne Vella said she wanted to make it clear that the court was not obliged, in reality, to make a reference to the ECJ. To this, the court added that the initial court was not, but this court would be.

On the question of identity, Vella reminded the court that this was a question of probability not reasonable doubt. Copies of Spiteri's ID and Australian passport were “clear” that the person referred to was the same.

The court will decide the appeal on 17 February. The court denied the man bail.