Courts' jurisdiction affirmed

A magistrate yesterday upheld and affirmed the jurisdiction of the Maltese courts with regard to the charges of drug conspiracy brought against a British national.

Magistrate Jacqueline Padovani Grima then moved on to rule, for a second time, that there were sufficient reasons for the indictment of British national Mark Charles Kenneth Stephens who is charged with conspiring to deal in drugs.

After being extradited from Spain to Malta last September 10, Mr Stephens had been arraigned and charged with conspiring to deal in drugs - to which he pleaded not guilty.

Mr Stephens questioned the validity of the arrest warrant on the grounds of which he had been extradited and also claimed that the Maltese courts did not have jurisdiction over his case because the alleged conspiracy took place when he was not in Maltese territorial waters. According to law, once a person was arraigned on drug charges, the court had 20 days within which to conclude the inquiry stage.

On September 29, 2005 - that is 19 days after arraignment - the magistrate concluded this stage.

She ruled there were sufficient reasons for Mr Stephen's indictment but abstained from giving a ruling on the matter of jurisdiction on the basis that the powers of the court - as a court of criminal inquiry - at that stage were practically limited to the collection of evidence.

Mr Stephens, insisting that the magistrate was to decide on the matter of jurisdiction, took his case to the higher courts. He claimed that the failure to provide a ruling by the Magistrates' Courts, as a court of criminal inquiry, was in violation of his right to a fair hearing.

He pointed out that by ruling that he be indicted, the Magistrates' Court had decided on the issue of jurisdiction in an implicit manner and was effectively impeded from deciding on the legality of his detention.

In a judgement handed down on February 14, the Constitutional Court upheld an appeal from a judgment delivered by the First Hall of the Civil Court.

The Constitutional Court ruled that the court of inquiry ought to have decided upon the plea on jurisdiction within the context of its decision as to whether there were sufficient reasons for a bill of indictment to be issued against Mr Stephens.

By abstaining from deciding on Mr Stephens' plea to the jurisdiction, his rights had been violated.

The court revoked the decree of the Magistrates' Courts delivered last September 29, whereby the magistrate had ruled for indictment but abstained from deciding on the matter of jurisdiction.

Mr Stephens was put in the same legal position he had been prior to that decree - that is on the 19th day after his arrest. This meant that now the magistrate only had one day to decide on the matter as the 20 days prescribed by law were to expire.

So - in line with the law - that same day, the magistrate requested an extension which was granted by the President.

Now that the case was sent back before Magistrate Padovani Grima she was to decide on the matter of jurisdiction and on whether there were sufficient reasons for Mr Stephen's indictment.

But Mr Stephen challenged the impartiality of the court to decide on the matter once the Magistrate had already pronounced herself in the ruling on September 29.

Magistrate Padovani Grima, however, noted that she had never pronounced herself on the matter of jurisdiction - the reason why the case had been sent back before her - and there was no reason according to law why she should abstain from hearing his case.

She then moved on to the matter of the jurisdiction of the Maltese courts over the case and, after analysing the law, ruled that article 22(1)(f) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance extended the principle of territorial jurisdiction to include members of a conspiracy who are outside of Malta.

Therefore, the Maltese courts had jurisdiction over the case of Mr Stephens.

The magistrate, after taking note of evidence heard and reports exhibited, ruled that there were sufficient reasons for his indictment.

Police Superintendent Neil Harrison and Inspector Norbert Ciappara prosecuted.

Defence counsel Joseph Brincat appeared for Mr Stephens.