Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1271696
4 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 22 JULY 2020 NEWS A 45-year-old German nation- al wanted on fraud charges in Germany has been appre- hended by the police in Malta on the strength of a European Arrest Warrant. The man was arrested on 18 July, after weeks of surveil- lance by police from the Cen- tral Intelligence & Analysis department and the Interna- tional Relations Unit. He had been staying in an apartment at St Julian's at the time of his arrest. The man was arraigned in court before magistrate Ra- chel Montebello on Monday in order to be extradited to Ger- many, however he did not give his consent for extradition and made a request for bail. The court, however, denied him bail and remanded him in custody. Court hearings regarding his extradition will continue in the coming days. The prosecution was led by inspector Mark Galea, assist- ed by lawyer Meredith Ebejer from the Attorney General's office. A former inmate whose im- migration status was revoked whilst in prison, has been re- leased after a court ruled that his subsequent arrest was ille- gal. The court ruled that a remov- al order alone is not sufficient to detain persons for the pur- poses of the immigration act. Inspector Darren Buhagiar had told the court, presided by magistrate Rachel Montebel- lo, that Aleksander Stojanovic had just served a prison sen- tence and was released from prison earlier this month. He was sent to the Immigration Section, which issued an order of return for Stojanovic, but which failed to also issue a re- moval order. Stojanovic was kept in police custody until his return to his homeland could be arranged. His lawyer, Jason Grima had subsequently filed habeas cor- pus proceedings, attacking the man's arrest as illegal, after he was released from prison. An order of return is not the same as a removal order and both had to be present in order for the man to be transported out of the country, he argued. The court, after examining the relevant law, agreed, say- ing that "it was the removal order and the order of return together and not the order of return alone which authorises the detention of a person [for the purposes of the immigra- tion act]." It ordered Stojanovic's im- mediate release from arrest. A 23-year-old man was arrest- ed after attempting to injure two police officers following a car chase The incident occurred at 1am when two Rapid Inter- vention Unit police officers on patrol in the limits of Mqabba, attempted to pull over a vehi- cle driven by the accused due to excessive speed. The police said in a statement on Tuesday that the driver did not stop and instead attempt- ed to crash into the RIU vehi- cle. It was at this point, the po- lice started chasing the vehicle, but the driver ignored the siren and increased speed. A while later the police man- aged to stop the vehicle in Triq il-Belt Valletta and ordered the driver to get out of it immedi- ately. The accused attempted to escape by running over the police; however one of the RIU policemen managed to detain the driver and pull him out of the car. The individual did not coop- erate and displayed aggressive behaviour, claiming that he had swallowed some illegal substances, the police said. An ambulance was called on site. Both policemen were treated at the Floriana Health Centre and were later certified to have suffered minor inju- ries. A police investigation is ongoing. MATTHEW AGIUS FAILURE to exhibit phone tapping warrants against George Degiorgio could have consequenc- es on the legality of evidence at a later stage, the Constitutional Court has warned. Degiorgio is one of three alleged hitmen – the others being his brother Alfred Degiorgio and Vince Muscat – in the Daphne Caruana Galizia murder plot. However, the Constitutional Court dismissed Degiorgio's appeal to order the warrants exhibit- ed in the criminal case, insisting it had no such power, but warned of the legal consequences if the warrants are not presented as evidence. Lawyer William Cuschieri, appearing for Degior- gio, had filed an application before the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, explaining that in a particular sitting, Inspector Keith Arnaud had testified that he did not know whether or not the phone tap evidence against the accused had been obtained through a warrant. Later in that sitting, reads the application, Se- curity Services head Joseph Bugeja had told the court that the warrant in question had been issued in February 2017 in connection with "some other crime that is certainly not the homicide," which was carried out months later. Bugeja had refused to exhibit this warrant. Cuschieri had asked the witness whether a war- rant against the man had ever been issued with re- gards to the Caruana Galizia murder. Bugeja had refused to answer that question. This led to the filing of the constitutional appli- cation with Cuschieri arguing that the question was pertinent and relevant to the case at hand and that an answer was required at law. It was initially rejected by the First Hall of the Civil Court, but a constitutional case was then filed, arguing that the first court had failed to give an explanation of its reasoning and asking the Constitutional Court to order the Head of the Malta Security Services to exhibit the warrant. The call recordings had been used as intelligence and were not exhibited as evidence against De- giorgio, the court had heard Inspector Keith Ar- naud, say. In a decision handed down on Monday by the Constitutional Court, presided by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Mr Justice Giannino Caruana De- majo and Mr Justice Anthony Ellul, it was stated that under the best evidence rule it would expect the warrant to be exhibited, but it was up to the parties to do so. The appeal was dismissed with costs, with the court saying it could not order the exhibition of the warrant. "One must remember that this is a constitutional case, where the complaint of the applicant is that the intercepts were not made in the manner pre- scribed by law and in so doing had breached his fundamental rights. Including the right to privacy. The respondent insists that they were made ac- cording to law. The Security Services Act clearly stated what was required for a lawful interception of electronic communications," said the court. But the defendant himself had revealed that a warrant had been issued and procedurally, this meant that for the best evidence to have been ex- hibited, the warrant must be presented in court, said the judges. "Alternatively, we end up in a situation where a person can say what they want without the obli- gation to substantiate their claims," the judges added. In the circumstances, said the court, the Head of the Security Services could not testify that in- tercepts were made under a warrant and then use the law to avoid proving that what was done, had been done legally. "That is the choice of the defendants and the court does not feel it should tell them what evi- dence they have to exhibit to prove the legality of the intercepts," the judges said. But failure to exhibit the warrant would mean that there was no evidence of the intercept having been legal, with all the consequences that brings with it, added the court. Assassination suspect loses Constitutional case on phone tap warrants Failure to exhibit phone tap warrants in Caruana Galizia case may compromise legality of evidence George Degiorgio Man wanted for fraud charges in Germany arrested in Malta Ex-con's detention pending removal to home country ruled illegal Police give chase to overspeeding driver who resisted arrest