The EU Arrest Warrant
British acceptance of EU legislative powers - Comment - Times Online: “From Mr Mark Wallace
Sir, Mr David Stephen (letter, September 24) is in my view dangerously optimistic in his assertion that the European arrest warrant is an unmitigated triumph for “trust†between EU member states over “civil libertiesâ€.
Contrary to the beliefs of the European Movement, it is not necessary to construct an artificial, would-be state in order for sovereign nations to simply co-operate on extradition.
The development by the EU of a character in law and, worse, a character in determining criminal law and legal procedure, is repeatedly portrayed as being born of necessity, when in fact it is born of federalist fanaticism.
Furthermore, whether or not Mr Stephen likes the Italian judicial system, no foreign political process ought to override a country’s unique judicial checks and balances.
What he portrays as the smooth bypassing of a gridlocked Italian system could just as easily be the smooth denial of my rights from birth under British justice.
I am not reassured on the basis of this one case that a “judicial leap of faith†is ever a sure enough way to protect and preserve our liberty.
MARK WALLACE
(Campaign Manager, The Freedom Association)
Bridgnorth, Shropshire
”
The issue which both of these letter writers to The Times are missing, is the application of the European Arrest Warrant to people here in the United Kingdom.
If Italy’s legal system is supposed to be bureaucratic, cumbersome and expensive, the same is true of the United Kingdom one as well.
The European Arrest Warrant, and the disgraceful Extradition Act 2003 were meant to simplfy things, but what they have done instead, is to make it possible for anyone in the UK to be arrested, held without charge, and brought in front of an Extradition Hearing in front of a Magistrate (usually Bow Street Magistrates’ Court), without the requirement for any prima facie evidence to be brought against the accused.
The only legal arguments which such an Extradition Hearing contemplates is whether the extradition request forms have been filled out properly, and whether or not there is a risk of torture or death penalty which would prevent the extradition - it does not consider any of the facts or evidence of the case at all.
The “evidence” which the foreign country might present to its own courts can be of the flimsiest and most untrustworthy nature, which would not be admissable as evidence in a UK Court e.g. “voiceprint analysis” of an intercepted mobile phone call in a foreign country, in a different foreign language, regarding a conversation in which nothing illegal was discussed.
See Spanish Al Quaeda group court case - judges reject the telephone intercept evidence as “untrustworty”
Who will be next ? A tourist who finds himself in dispute over a hotel or bar bill or a parking ticket ?