Proposed Amendments To Extradition Legislation In Malta

Extradition

Over the past few months the topic of extradition has been a very topical one and this has led to discussions on amendments to the applicable legislation in Malta.

In the case of Il-Puliżija vs. Daniel-Joe Meli, first heard before the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Inquiry and later appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal,¹ the Court was asked to proceed with the convicted person's extradition. Meanwhile, the accused submitted an application requesting the revocation of the Court's order. Initially, the accused consented to being extradited to the United States, but later sought to withdraw that consent, arguing that the Court of Magistrates had failed to confirm whether he was medically fit and capable of understanding his decision.

In this context, a legal gap was identified, as Maltese law does not currently address the issue of giving and then retracting consent. Consequently, a Constitutional Case was filed on this basis.

Following the above case, the Government clarified that while extradition is crucial in cross-border cases, the procedures differ between EU Member States and non-EU countries. This difference raised debates on the responsibilities of states and the rights of individuals facing extradition. Whilst Government emphasised that extradition has proven essential for upholding international public order, especially since those accused of crimes can easily flee or be located outside the country where the offence occurred, they were adamant in addressing the identified legal lacunas, in the hopes of upholding international public order vis-à-vis the accused's rights.

To this end, Parliament is currently in the process of a legislative reform to introduce a bill amending the Extradition Act, Chapter 276 of the Laws of Malta ('hereinafter referred to as the Act').

The objects and reasons of this bill are to introduce safeguards for the voluntariness of acceptance of extradition at the initial stages of extradition proceedings up to a level comparable to that already guaranteed in extradition proceedings undertaken further to European Arrest Warrants.

To this effect, the following amendments are set to be established:

1. In Article 15(2) of the Act, the following sentence will be added: "Where a person has been brought before a court of committal as provided in sub-article (1), the court shall inform such person that he may consent to being extradited and the court shall explain the procedure that shall apply if he gives his consent."

• The words "that [the person arrested] is willing to be extradited, the said court upon being satisfied of the voluntariness of such declaration shall" shall be substituted by the words "that [the person arrested] is willing to be extradited, the court shall clearly warn such person of the legal consequences of his declaration and, after allowing him such time as the court deems reasonable for him to reply, the court shall upon being satisfied of the voluntariness of such declaration";

• A proviso is also proposed to be added following Article 15(c), which allows individuals awaiting extradition from Malta, who had previously consented to extradition, to request the annulment of their consent within fifteen (15) days of this provision's implementation by filing an application (rikors) in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The filing of such an application will effectively pause the extradition process. During this time, all extradition proceedings, including the associated time limits, will be suspended until the court accepts the request for the annulment of consent. Once the request is given cognisance by the Court of Criminal Appeal, the case will be referred back to the Court of Committal within three (3) days, allowing the individual to contest the extradition. The time limits for the person's arrest/extradition will reset once the case is returned to the Court of Committal.

This amendment introduces a completely new concept to Article 15 and the law of Extradition. Under the current law, the court of committal is required to inform the accused of their rights and to ensure that the arrested person declares before the court that they are willing to be extradited. However, the law does not account for the possibility of retracting such a declaration for valid reasons. To this effect, these changes are envisaging major advancements in the upholding of international public order while providing greater protection of the accused's rights.

Footnote

1. Appeal Number 117/2024/1, 27^th February 2024

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.