A constitutional court has upheld an appeal filed by the Attorney General and revoked an earlier decision to grant bail to a man undergoing extradition proceedings.
Angelo Frank Spiteri, who is the director of a Lithuanian-registered travel company, is wanted in the eastern European country to face charges of fraud. Authorities there say Spiteri, along with two others, set up the 'Holiday Warehouse' agency in Vilnius, which would take payment for accommodation agreements with certain hotels but fail to provide the promised service.
Spiteri has been fighting the extradition request and has claimed that he would be mistreated in a Lithuanian prison.
Mr Spiteri had been granted bail shortly after his arraignment but this was automatically revoked as soon as the court of Magistrates upheld the extradition request in January.
Lawyers Jason Azzopardi, Kris Busietta and Eve Borg Costanzi, defending Mr Spiteri, have filed constitutional proceedings demanding immediate bail and compensation for deprivation of liberty.
A constitutional court had decided that there was no reason to deprive Mr Spiteri from the right to be given bail whilst criminal proceedings against him were pending. The Attorney General appealed this decision, insisting that the court did not have the authority to order the provisional measure and that the circumstances did not justify the granting of bail.
Yesterday the Constitutional Court, presided over by Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri and judges Giannino Caruana Demajo and Noel Cuschieri, upheld the AG's appeal. As a result the decision to release Mr Spiteri from arrest was overturned.
The court said that interim measures such as the order to release Spiteri could only be taken in "extremely urgent" cases, where irreparable harm to the party's vital interests was probable if nothing was done.
The detention of the accused had been done in good faith, due to the request for his extradition from another country. That request was still being processed.
The court also noted that the extradition proceedings had been dealt with in an expedited manner and that there had not been any unreasonable delays.
It said that no circumstances that rendered the request an urgent one existed.
The extradition case was sent back to the court of Magistrates.