A Magistrate yesterday ordered that a French couple be extradited to France after they escaped custody two years ago following convictions for torture and kidnapping.

The extradition proceedings were characterised by colourful allegations made by the couple's defence lawyer Emmy Bezzina who told the press after the decision that he intended to appeal.

Alain Schmitt, 49, the spiritual leader of a French sect, and his 47-year-old fiancée, Laurence Liegeois were wanted by the French after they fled the country. A European Arrest Warrant was issued for them.

Last week the couple sought permission to marry in Malta but the court said it had no competence to decide that issue.

The Curia however said it could not allow the divorced couple to get married in any church or chapel because they did not satisfy the requirements of Canon Law.

This application to the courts was described by Donnatella Frendo Dimech, a lawyer from the Attorney General's Office, as nothing short of a stunt to stall proceedings.

At the beginning of the session in court yesterday, Magistrate Joseph Apap Bologna remarked that Dr Bezzina had verbally informed him that he had filed an application for the case to be postponed by half an hour; however, he had in fact found two applications.

In the second application, Dr Bezzina asked that Mr Schmitt be allowed to testify and his testimony recorded into the acts of the proceedings.

Dr Bezzina said that if his client, who is diabetic, was sent back to France he would face sure death in the French prisons because of their disastrous state.

He said everyone was aware of the bad state of the prisons but both the magistrate and Dr Frendo Dimech immediately pointed out that they knew nothing of the sort.

In her reply, Dr Frendo Dimech said that this application was clearly indicative of the manner in which the defence wanted to conduct this case: by stalling. She said the second application had absolutely no relevance as it was not admissible in terms of law.

Magistrate Apap Bologna ruled that the application was neither relevant nor admissible according to law and he proceeded to deliver judgment.

Speaking after the judgment, Dr Bezzina said a number of issues in the proceedings warranted a constitutional case and he would be appealing the decision.