Coleiro v The Court of Magistrates Malta

Under section 21(1) of the Extradition Act 2003, the District Judge must decide whether extradition is compatible with the requested person’s Convention rights. The requesting state is presumed able and willing to comply with those rights, but the presumption is rebuttable. The requested person must provide clear and cogent evidence establishing substantial grounds for believing that extradition would create a real risk of treatment reaching the high Article 3 threshold, or another relevant Convention violation. The fact that successful reliance on section 21(1) will be exceptional does not create a legal requirement to show exceptional circumstances. Fresh evidence may be admitted on appeal where the statutory conditions are met, but it must still demonstrate a real risk before it can affect the result.

The claimant, a Maltese citizen, was wanted in Malta under two European Arrest Warrants for prosecution for alleged fraud, dishonesty, forgery and customs-related offences. The District Judge ordered extradition from the United Kingdom, rejecting challenges based on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, including alleged risks from criminal associates and conditions at Malta’s Corradino Correctional Facility.

On appeal, the claimant relied on a subsequently published report of the Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The central issues were whether the report should be admitted as fresh evidence, whether it showed a real risk of Convention-incompatible treatment, and whether the appeal should be adjourned for further expert evidence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The fresh report was admissible under section 27(4)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003. The relevant hurdles had been overcome, and the court considered its implications.
2. Section 21(1) imposed an obligation on the District Judge to decide whether extradition would be compatible with the claimant’s Convention rights. The proper starting point was the assumption or presumption that the requesting state could and would fulfil its Convention obligations. The high threshold associated with Articles 2 and 3 did not convert that presumption into a legal requirement to establish exceptional circumstances.
3. The presumption could be displaced by clear and cogent evidence establishing substantial grounds for believing that extradition would expose the claimant to a real risk of ill-treatment. In practical terms, reliance on section 21(1) might succeed only exceptionally, but that was a consequence of the evidential threshold rather than an additional legal test.
4. The CPT report identified serious institutional deficiencies at the Corradino Correctional Facility, including inadequate staffing, informal power structures, gang-type practices, the absence of a genuine prisoner classification system and inadequate responses to inter-prisoner violence. However, the report related to a visit in May 2008. The Maltese authorities’ response and their specific assurances concerning protection, separation and action on threats provided further reassurance.
5. The evidence did not establish that Malta was unable to provide reasonable protection against ill-treatment by non-state agents, or that the claimant personally faced a real risk reaching the Article 2 or Article 3 threshold. Even if the District Judge had possessed the CPT report, he would have reached the same conclusion. No sufficient basis existed for an adjournment to obtain a further expert report.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the extradition order was dismissed. The District Judge’s decision dated 2 December 2010 was upheld in substance.