Malta Extradition

[stephen.martin]

I'm a British diver and a member of BSAC for 15 years and last June I was diving diving with two other Britons who lost their lives off Gozo, Malta last June and I've been charged with involuntary homicide by a Gozo magistrate's court in July, and served with an extradition order to face trial in Malta.

The Crown Prosecution Service in England will send me to Malta in August to defend the charge, accompanied by an esteemed British medical doctor and an expert in diving medicine and accidents

While remaining in Britain I have been electronically tagged, and have to report to a police station three times a day and observe a night-time curfew.

The move came as a shock given that an inquest at Brighton & Hove Coroner's Court in February had returned a verdict of accidental death for the two divers, who died during the shore-dive holidaying members of the British Sub-Aqua Club's Brighton branch BSAC 007

We were following the popular route between the Inland Sea and the Blue Hole. I was buddied with one of the deceased at the front of the group as we finned close to the shoreline at a depth of 10-12m. The others were following when, without warning, the deceased made a sharp turn seaward and descended sharply whilst still finning

I was practically shoulder-to-shoulder with my buddy but her turn occurred outside his peripheral vision so I did not note it immediately. The others saw it, immediately behind and followed my buddy, whose exhalation bubbles indicated rapid breathing.

They got to her at a depth of 35m and, with the diver blank-eyed and unresponsive, conducted a controlled buoyant lift to the surface. On the surface I summoned help and instructed the two other divers to get out of the water and towed my buddy towed ashore in a sea state lumpy enough to make it difficult to get her onto and up a rocky slope, but people ashore provided help.

A German doctor who happened to be among the tourist conducted CPR on the diver until the emergency services arrived and declared her to be dead.

The other diver had seemingly been fine as he helped bring my buddy to shore but, as she was removed from the sea, we realised that he was no longer with us and, with his BC inflated, had drifted out to sea.

One of the divers ran to where a RIB was moored and was able to get its owner to run out to pick up one of the rescuers, who was brought ashore unconscious and found also to have died.

Equipment used by the deceased was impounded by the Police as is normal in these situations. Much of it was rental gear owned by a local dive company but computers, GoPro cameras were personal have not yet been returned.

At inquest it was heard that both deceased had suffered immersion pulmonary oedemas. The expert witness told the inquest, would have suffered spontaneously, and her reduced oxygen intake would have explained her rapid breathing and erratic behaviour.

Before the inquest, the coroner heard that a secret inquiry into the accident was being conducted in Gozo and tried, without success, to obtain information about it, the surviving witnesses were not asked to attend the inquiry

My arrest warrant outlined charge details claiming that I had failed in my duty to observe the group generally and to check weather conditions before the dive, which we did when we abandoned the first dive because of poor conditions and when we arrived and assessed the new dive and sought local advice and observed numerous divers in the water

I was and have always been a conscientious buddy and was not the group's leader, even though as an instructor I was one of the most qualified divers in the group.

Other allegations included that I should have given first aid to the deceased while she was still under water, which he rejects as absurd and impractical, that the dive-profile of the divers who died showed "unorthodox" fast descent and ascent rates, which I maintain were necessary for an emergency rescue, and that I had failed to check for unknown equipment faults. Comprehensive buddy-checks were made pre-dive and that other checks thereafter are not normally made.

This case has been brought to the attention of my local MP, Sir Peter Bottomley. His Parliamentary assistant had told me that the MP was contacting the Maltese High Commission in London to express concern over what would seem an excessive reaction to the emergency that had enveloped the divers and resulted in a failed rescue

The Police have informed me to keep my phone on and to surrender myself to the Police once informed

Diver Magazine are reporting the case but Wendy Meadows the Chief Operating Office told me BSAC are refusing to report this incident in their magazine or to help under their 3rd party insurance policy which comes as part of your membership, or mention the tragic accident in their SCUBA magazine, the article is also receiving a lot of media attention from the Time and Telegraph



BSAC FORUM HAS JUST DELETED THIS POST FROM THIER DIVE FORUM...it was live for 10 hours then censored

 

[victorzamora]

Holy crap.....good luck with all of this. It's bad enough you had to be a part of that tragedy, but to now be accused of negligence? I truly wish you the best of luck.

 

[Freewillow]

Speechless

Is it "legal" for Great Britain to expatriate british citizens to a foreign country?

 

[PeterNBiddle]

Speechless

Is it "legal" for Great Britain to expatriate british citizens to a foreign country?

Yep - just as it is in the U.S.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[letterboy]

There must be more to this story we are not getting from a poster who has two posts on SB, one in 2003 and one today.

 

[Freewillow]

Yep - just as it is in the U.S.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I am glad, I am living in europe on the continent. A national would NEVER be expatriated ( sorry, extradition, Thank you JohnN) to a foreing country but would be prosecuted and judged in his native contry.

Who and where do one draw the line between right and wrongfull accusations?

Note that I do not take sides on the case from Malta.

 

[JohnN]

I am glad, I am living in europe on the continent. A national would NEVER be expatriated to a foreing country but would be prosecuted and judged in his native contry.

Who and where do one draw the line between right and wrongfull accusations?

Note that I do not take sides on the case from Malta.

Nope. Term is extradition and treaties exist between US and Belgium and I'm 99% confident that they exist between Belgium and Malta.

I can't find the direct cite but here is what Malta says (understand that extradition treaties are always bi-lateral)

Maltese Nationals may be extradited in accordance with Domestic Legislation,International Treaties to which Malta is a signatory State and EU Community Law.Malta retains the possibility of not extraditing in line with the reservations Maltahas negotiated in international treaties and the Convention. However to-date Maltahas always extradited.

 

[stephen.martin]

There must be more to this story we are not getting from a poster who has two posts on SB, one in 2003 and one today.

Hi Letterboy

I wish there were more but its true and very scarey if you've never been arrested before, I don't normally post on forums but this time I was advised to so I could get as much publicity as possible

I will keep you all posted on the events there is something very dishonest and unpleasant about the way the Maltese authorities behave

Steve Martin
BSAC Advanced Diver

---------- Post added July 31st, 2015 at 05:48 PM ----------

I think you'll find if you had a European Arrest warrant the local Police would come and get you late at night as they did with me, hand cuff you and take you before the judge in London or wherever your Extradition court is, you have two choices, consent to the extradition and be extradited immediately or don't consent and get an expert lawyer as I did, who looked at the arrest warrant and wondered who on earth wrote it, but the British accepted it, and I have to report to the police three times a week and stay at home between 11pm and 6am

Its scarey stuff

 

[Freewillow]

Nope. Term is extradition and treaties exist between US and Belgium and I'm 99% confident that they exist between Belgium and Malta.

Well, read this from wikipedia:

• Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over a crime can be invoked to refuse extradition. In particular, the fact that the person in question is a nation's own citizen causes that country to have jurisdiction.
  • Own nationals: Some countries, such as Austria,^[6] Brazil,^[7] the Czech Republic,^[8] France,^[9][10] Germany,^[11] Japan,^[12] the People's Republic of China,^[13] the Republic of China (Taiwan)^[14] forbid extradition of their own nationals. These countries often have laws in place that give them jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad by or against citizens. By virtue of such jurisdiction, they prosecute and try citizens accused of crimes committed abroad as if the crime had occurred within the country's borders (see, e.g., trial of Xiao Zhen).
• And since, I know that you can find mistakes in wikipedia, read this ( in french ). I would be happy to read a text that says the contrary. I am prepared to revise my opinion on this.

[h=1]Sénat de Belgique[/h] [h=2]SESSION DE 2006-2007[/h]

18 JANVIER 2007​

---

[h=3]Proposition de loi insérant un § 1^erbis dans l'article 7 du titre préliminaire du Code de procédure pénale, en vue d'instaurer une obligation de notification des mandats d'arrêt internationaux[/h] [h=3](Déposée par M. Josy Dubié)[/h]

---

[h=3]DÉVELOPPEMENTS[/h]

---

En Belgique, la matière de l'extradition est essentiellement régie par la loi du 15 mars 1874, modifiée par la loi du 31 juillet 1985. Toutefois, puisque l'extradition concerne, par définition, un contexte interétatique, dépassant les frontières nationales, la Belgique a rapidement été amenée à conclure des traités et des conventions bi- et multilatérales, nuançant le régime belge de droit commun.
Ces instruments multilatéraux relatifs à l'extradition priment sur les normes de droit interne, même postérieures à la loi. Ils constituent donc un élément essentiel de la réglementation de l'extradition.
Les principaux traités en la matière sont au nombre de trois:
— Le Traité d'extradition et d'entraide judiciaire du 27 juin 1962 entre la Belgique, le Luxembourg et les Pays-Bas, appelé le Traité Benelux;
— La Convention d'application de l'Accord de Schengen du 14 juin 1985, approuvée par la loi du 18 mars 1993 et liant de nombreux États européens (la Belgique, le Luxembourg, les Pays-Bas, la France, l'Allemagne, l'Espagne, le Portugal, l'Italie, l'Autriche et la Grèce).
— La Convention européenne d'extradition du Conseil de l'Europe du 13 décembre 1957, ratifiée seulement le 22 avril 1997 par la Belgique.
La Belgique, dans sa loi du 15 mars 1874, n'envisage pas l'extradition de ses nationaux. En effet, l'article 1^er ne traite que de l'extradition de « tout étranger ». Ce refus d'extrader ses nationaux est une position commune aux États de tradition continentale, et s'explique par le fait que la législation de ces derniers prévoit généralement la possibilité de poursuivre et de juger leurs nationaux ayant commis des infractions sur un territoire étranger. De fait, nos juridictions sont compétentes pour connaître des faits commis par des Belges en dehors du territoire du Royaume en vertu des articles 6 à 9 du titre préliminaire du Code de procédure pénale.
Comme il peut s'écouler un certain temps entre la demande d'extradition de l'État requérant et la transmission, par ce dernier, des documents nécessaires par la voie diplomatique, la loi du 15 mars 1874 prévoit une possibilité d'arrestation provisoire de l'étranger, sous certaines conditions et sur la base d'un mandat d'arrêt délivré par un juge d'instruction belge.
Cette possibilité est également prévue dans les principales conventions internationales traitant de l'extradition.
Avant de décerner un mandat d'arrêt provisoire, le juge d'instruction doit vérifier si les conditions requises pour l'extradition sont réunies.
De ce fait, s'il apparaît que l'intéressé est un ressortissant belge, le juge d'instruction refusera d'émettre un mandat d'arrêt provisoire.
En attendant, la décision éventuelle des autorités belges de juger elles-mêmes la personne, celle-ci restera libre d'aller et venir sur le territoire belge et ne pourra être extradée.
Cependant, l'affaire dite « Bahar Kimyongür » du nom de ce ressortissant belge, d'origine turque, arrêté aux Pays-Bas sur base d'un mandat d'arrêt international délivré à son encontre par la Turquie, dont il n'avait jamais eu connaissance, et donc menacé d'extradition vers la Turquie, nous a récemment montré la limite de cette « protection » des nationaux.
Il apparaît que certains pays, dont la Turquie, délivrent assez systématiquement des mandats d'arrêt internationaux contre des personnes accusées, à tort ou à raison, de « terrorisme ».
Dans le cas de M. Kimyongür les autorités judiciaires néerlandaises ont fini par libérer ce ressortissant belge, estimant que les accusations contenues dans le dossier transmis par les autorités turques n'étaient pas fondées.
Il reste que ce citoyen belge a passé plus de deux mois derrière les barreaux dans l'angoisse d'être extradé vers un pays accusé par diverses organisations de défense des droits de l'homme, de violer ces droits, en particulier dans l'univers carcéral.
À la lumière de cette triste expérience, dans la mesure où il apparaît que tout ressortissant belge soumis à un mandat d'arrêt international, risque à tout moment arrestation et éventuellement extradition dès lors qu'il quitte le territoire belge, la moindre des choses pour un pays défendant des valeurs démocratiques est d'avertir son ressortissant de l'existence d'un mandat d'arrêt international à son égard.
Ainsi, la personne concernée pourra au moins se défendre des accusations portées contre elle et si elle décide, malgré tout, de quitter le territoire belge, elle le fera en ayant connaissance des risques qu'elle prend.
La présente proposition vise donc à imposer aux autorités belges de notifier à la personne de nationalité belge qui fait l'objet d'une demande d'extradition, l'existence et l'origine de cette demande ainsi que les motifs qui la sous-tendent aux yeux du pays requérant.

 

[gypsyjim]

I can not say that Malta was yet on my short list of dive destinations, but I can say that I'll wait to see how this turns out before it ever does get on that list.