Human rights court declares arrest of conman lawyer Patrick Spiteri was valid

The European Court of Human Rights on Tuesday ruled the arrest of disbarred lawyer Patrick Spiteri over fraud and forgery did not breach the European Convention of Human Rights.

The applicant, Patrick Spiteri, 61, is subject to criminal proceedings in Malta involving charges of fraud, misappropriation, and forgery of public documents. These offences were allegedly committed during the years between 1998 and 2000.

In December of 2008 the court held there was sufficient prima facie evidence for the applicant to face trial.

In 2013, Spiteri had fallen seriously ill and required overseas treatment.

He left Malta to receive the adequate medical treatment and in turn missed several scheduled hearings.

The Maltese authorities then issued a Part III Arrest Warrant, followed by a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) for the accused to be extradited to Malta to face prosecution. Following extradition proceedings in the UK, he was brought to Malta and appeared under arrest in May of 2017.

In July of the same year, Spiteri challenged his continued detention but the court confirmed that the EAW was valid and issued both for prosecution and extradition purposes. He later asked for a reconsideration and argued that the EAW could not justify ongoing detention without an issued national arrest warrant but his claims were once again rejected.

However, in December of that same year, bail was finally granted to the applicant under strict conditions. These included a travel ban and daily signing of the bail book.

Two years later, he submitted a request to the court in order to travel for work purposes but this was denied as the court was not convinced that he would return, in light of his previous absconding. Hence, the applicant was prohibited from travelling and his travel ban was not revoked.

In light of this, he filed a constitutional case, arguing that the EAW issued in his name was not preceded by a national arrest warrant. The lack of a valid national arrest warrant preceding the EAW, as required by EU law and notable jurisprudence, rendered the arrest unlawful.

While the First Hall Civil Court ruled in his favour, the Constitutional Court reversed the judgment on appeal. It held the 2014 warrant was a valid national arrest warrant and noted that back in the day, Spiteri never contested his detention and failed to ask for bail at the time.

Therefore, Spiteri filed an application before the European Court of Human Rights, citing a violation of his right to a fair trial, an unlawful arrest and a violation of his freedom of movement.

The central issue of contention was whether Spiteri’s detention following his return to Malta via a EAW had been affected "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law". The ECHR therefore had to determine whether the applicant’s pre-trial detention was lawful.

The applicant once again argued his detention was not lawful under Maltese or EU law because there was no valid national arrest warrant prior to the EAW. He also contended that his request for a preliminary reference to the CJEU had been ignored by the Maltese courts, violating his right to a fair hearing and decision.

He also claimed that bail conditions restricting his movement, including a travel ban, were unlawful as they followed an invalid detention.

The government argued that the Part III Arrest Warrant served as a valid national arrest warrant, distinct from the EAW and hence satisfied both domestic and EU law requirements.

Upon its decision, the court acknowledged that the EAW ceased to be valid as a legal basis for detention once the applicant was brought before a Maltese court.

However, it concluded that the Part III warrant was issued for the purpose of arrest and detention, had a proper basis in domestic law and was separate from the EAW. Hence the CJEU, accepted the Constitutional Court’s interpretation that the Part III warrant constituted a valid national arrest warrant.

Therefore, no violation of Article 5 was found, ruling that the national warrant was issued lawfully under Maltese law, that it was not arbitrary and that the Maltese courts correctly applied EU law.

The court acknowledged that a more reasoned response to the request for a preliminary reference would have been preferable but ultimately found the domestic court’s approach adequate.

Therefore, a further no violation of articles 6 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 were found. The court found the restrictions on movement were proportionate and legally justified.

Despite this, Judge Lofaro in his dissenting opinion, disagreed with the majority of the European Court of Human Rights, primarily on the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention and the legality of the applicant’s freedom of movement.

While the majority accepted that a valid national arrest warrant – the so-called Part III Arrest Warrant, had preceded the EAW and satisfied the legal emphasized that the bail conditions imposed on Spiteri. He maintained that the Part III Arrest Warrant and the EAW form were not two distinct legal instruments, but in fact one and the same.

As a result, there was no prior, independent national judicial decision ordering Spiteri’s arrest, which is a fundamental requirement under both the Convention and EU law.

The judge also extended his disagreement to the court's findings concerning the applicant’s freedom of movement.

He emphasised the bail conditions imposed on Spiteri, particularly the travel ban, were based on his initial unlawful detention. Since the deprivation of liberty was not lawful, any subsequent restrictions could not be justified as lawful or necessary.