A man who is facing extradition proceedings has filed an appeal against the judgement handed down by the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, which had ruled that there were other adequate remedies that the man had not availed himself of and hence, by virtue of article 46(2) of the Constitution, it refused to exercise its Constitutional competence.

John Mary Chircop, 41, who has Maltese and Australian dual nationality, is wanted in the state of Victoria in Australia to face charges of violent indecent assault and rape of a teenager, who happens to be his stepdaughter. The crime allegedly took place between 1 November 2003 and 8 September 2004.

Magistrate Joseph Apap Bologna has already ruled that Chircop is to be extradited to Australia to face justice.

But following this decision, Chircop filed a constitutional case claiming that his right to a fair hearing had been breached by the magistrate who presided over his extradition proceedings. He also claimed that he was not in a position to communicate with his defence lawyers in order to prepare his defence.

Moreover, he claimed that when he had said, at the beginning of the extradition proceedings, that he was not fit to stand trial, the presiding magistrate had still continued to listen to evidence that the prosecution was bringing against him. After listening to this evidence, the magistrates appointed a team of experts to examine Mr Chircop and determine whether he was fit to stand trial.

The First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction rejected the case and ruled that there were other remedies that he should have availed himself of before filing the case in question.

Mr Chircop, through his lawyers, filed an application yesterday appealing against the decision of the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.

In his application, Mr Chircop mentioned two incidents which, he said, do not usually happen in the Maltese courts. He said a letter was sent by the Chief Justice to the judge presiding over his case and another letter concerning his case was sent by the Commission for the Administration of Justice to the same judge. These letters, he said, could have placed unnecessary pressure on the presiding judge when handing down his judgement.

Mr Chircop therefore called on the court to reconsider his requests.

Dr Patrick Galea, Dr Michael Tanti Dougall and Dr Philip Galea Farrugia represented Mr Chircop.