Lawyers for a Qrendi man, who is wanted to face drug trafficking charges in Italy, are understood to be filing an appeal after the Court of Magistrates upheld a request for him to be transferred into the custody of the Italian judicial authorities.
John Spiteri, a 56-year-old builder from Qrendi, is wanted by the Italian authorities to face charges of conspiracy to commit a crime and trafficking marijuana.
The same court had previously dismissed the request on the grounds that important documentation had not been exhibited by the prosecution, but the Court of Criminal Appeal subsequently ordered Spiteri’s case to be reheard, following an appeal filed by the Attorney General.
When the sitting began this morning before magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech, the court began by rejecting an application filed by the defence last night, in which Spiteri’s lawyers cited a recent decision by the highest court in Italy to refuse an extradition from Italy to Malta.
Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech decreed that the urgent application, which had been filed out of hours, was frivolous and had been filed both without being shown to the AG and without obtaining the court’s permission, as required by the law of procedure.
The court then proceeded to hand down its decision on Spiteri’s extraditability.
The technical arguments raised by the defence were refuted by the documentation provided by the prosecution, observed the magistrate in a studied judgement citing both the applicable sections of the law and important case law.
The court ruled that both of the crimes for which Spiteri is wanted to face Italian justice for - conspiracy to commit a crime and trafficking marijuana - are extraditable offences and neither were there any bars to extradition. This, the magistrate said, meant that there was no obstacle for the court to uphold the request for Spiteri’s return to Italy.
The court ordered that Spiteri is to be remanded in custody until he can be transferred into Italian custody under the terms for the warrant, after the seven-day time period to file an appeal elapse.
He also had the right to request a constitutional remedy if he felt his human rights were breached, reminded the magistrate.
Spiteri’s lawyers say they intend to file an appeal.
The same court, similarly presided, had previously dismissed the request on the grounds that important documentation had not been exhibited by the prosecution, but after the Attorney General (AG) filed an appeal to that judgement, the Court of Criminal Appeal had declared the decision to be null and ordered Spiteri’s case be reheard.
Crucially, the documentation that was previously missing was duly exhibited the second time around.
Spiteri’s defence lawyers had insisted that the court had not been provided with sufficient information about the accused’s actions for it to decide whether the crime as described, also constituted a crime under Maltese law - the so-called ‘double criminality’ requirement.
Prosecutor Ylenia Abela and police inspector Mark Galea represented the Maltese authorities in the proceedings.
Lawyers Franco Debono and Charles Mercieca represented Spiteri.