Extradited man claims human rights violation

A British man extradited to Malta from Spain to face criminal charges on drug trafficking offences yesterday filed a constitutional application against the Attorney General in the First Hall of the Civil Court claiming his fundamental human rights had been violated.

Mark Charles Stephens said the records of the proceedings against him before the Magistrates' Court as a court of inquiry had been remitted to the Attorney General's Office after the court ruled there were sufficient grounds for a bill of indictment to be issued against him.

This ruling was delivered after the court abstained from deciding upon the plea of jurisdiction raised by Mr Stephens.

Upon his extradition to Malta, Mr Stephens had immediately lodged a plea claiming that the local courts did not have the jurisdiction to hear and decide the case against him. However, the court before which he had been arraigned did not enter into the merits of this plea but had merely confirmed that his arrest had been valid.

Mr Stephens had then filed a constitutional application and the Constitutional Court had declared it was not going to decide upon the plea of jurisdiction because this was to be decided by a criminal court.

The failure of the Magistrates' Court to investigate the issue of jurisdiction constituted, according to Mr Stephens, a violation of his fundamental human rights.

The court was bound to examine all aspects, whether legal or factual, of an arrest.

Once a plea to the jurisdiction was raised, this was to be decided by the court. However, the court had failed to do this in this case.

The Magistrates' Court had ruled, in a decree last Thursday, that it was abstaining from deciding upon the plea of jurisdiction as the powers of the court were practically limited to the collection of evidence. According to Mr Stephens, the Magistrates' Court had contradicted itself for it had refused to examine the jurisdiction plea but had exercised jurisdiction by finding that the accused was to face trial.

All issues concerning jurisdiction had to be decided at the commencement of proceedings.

Mr Stephens added that the arrest of a person in a European state could not be considered lawful if such state did not have jurisdiction.

In yesterday's application, Mr Stephens submitted that the Magistrates' Court was empowered to deliver a ruling on a plea as to jurisdiction.

He added he was facing three charges of conspiracy to traffic in drugs. These charges related to an instantaneous crime in the sense that the intention to traffic in drugs was a crime. However, the prosecution were alleging that the conspiracy to traffic in drugs took place in Spain, so the jurisdiction vested in the Spanish courts.

Could legislation have been enacted so as to render an agreement entered into overseas a crime in Malta? Mr Stephens submitted this could not be the case. Furthermore, laws were enacted on a territorial basis.

It was common knowledge that no medical doctor practising overseas and who performed an abortion on a Maltese woman could be made to face criminal action in Malta. For this to occur, there had to be an extension to the principle of territorial jurisdiction. However, no such extension had been enacted to the crimes with which Mr Stephens was charged.

Mr Stephens concluded by calling upon the First Hall of the Civil Court to declare that his fundamental human rights had been violated and to declare that his arrest and continued detention were illegal.

Lawyer Joseph Brincat signed the application.