5 posts tagged “european arrest warrant”

Over the last ten or so years, our freedoms have been dying tiny cut by tiny cut. Few seem to understand the protection given by Trial by Jury, the Writ of Habeas Corpus and the independence of our Judiciary. We seem to be moving slowly to a form of autocratic government, but there are heartening signs. The defeat of the Westminster Government's bill whereby it attempted to introduce 42 day detention without charge and the considerable concern over the use of anti-terrorism legislation to freeze the accounts of Icelandic banks in the UK were such signs. The introduction of the European Arrest Warrant in 2003 went unnoticed by most people. Of course it was only going to be used against terrorist subjects, but in time old fashion, it became a useful tool for other means. Even here there are signs of hope.

The attempted extradition of Andrew Symeou grinds ever onwards, but the publicity surrounding this case is beginning to alert some people to the amazing losses of freedom associated with the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Symeou's Member of Parliament is beginning to take an interest as are some of the TV media because, at long last, they are beginning to understand some of the implications. As Private Eye puts it, in its latest issue (No. 1223 Nov 14th 2008):

Lawyers for the Bournemouth University Student fear he will not get a fair trial in Greece, claiming that seriously flawed and contradictory evidence against him has been manipulated or fabricated by police.

Symeou is accused of striking 18-year-old Jonathan Hiles with such force that he fell off a nightclub stage, suffering fatal injuries. The student denies ever punching anyone in his life, and certainly not Mr Hiles; and says he only learned about the incident after he had returned at the end of his 18-30 holiday.

The evidence against Andrew Symeou is based on statements from two of his friends obtained:

by Greek police ... after they had been detained for eight hours and verbally assaulted. The statements were in Greek and the teenagers had no idea what they were signing. The moment they were released, the two boys had complained to British consular officials and their concerns were supported by a Club 18-30 rep. ...

back in England the two boys gave markedly different statements to the Welsh police, for the Coroner's inquest. Furthermore ...

CCTV footage and evidence from the nightclub and from the other bars and clubs Symeou visited that night has been lost. His lawyers argue it would prove beyond doubt that he was not – and he and his friend maintain – even at the club at the time.

And our “justice” system said:

However the judge said these were matters for the trial and not for him.

Andrew Symeou's lawyers said:

...Symeou had not been summoned, no evidence had been given against him, he had never been interviewed by Greek or British police and no explanation had been given to him before the warrant was issued – 10 months after the event.

Welcome to your new police state!

More on the European Arrest Warrant

From The Europa web site:

European arrest warrant replaces extradition between EU Member States

Note:

1. that the person only has to be accused, not charged

2. that the EAW has replaced our well tried and tested extradition procedures where the UK extradition judge was required to ensure that there was a prima facie case prior to extradition

3. that detention without trial for 24 hours 48 hours 28 days is unheard of in almost all EU states as legislation is centrally controlled. Detention for 18 months without charge is far from unusual.

4. That we do not share the same highly demanding conception of the rule of law. As Baroness Helena Kennedy said in her 2004 book “Just Law”

The first mistake is a failure to see that law is cultural. It does not come out of nowhere and law's genesis explains the way in which checks and balances develop and the ways in which consent is secured. Consent is essential to effective legal systems.

Unlike the rest of Europe, which has what is called the 'civil law' system with codified laws and a career judiciary, we have a common law system. In the Middle Ages most European societies rediscovered Roman law and, having reworked it, they received it as the basis of their national systems. The English held out and through the creation of the Empire exported the Anglo-Saxon-based common law to all the English-speaking colonies.

The common law therefore became the basis of the legal systems in the US and Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Nigeria and other parts of Africa and remains so. However, as new democracies have emerged around the world and sought to adopt a Western model they have most frequently replicated civil law systems because they are easier to take off the shelf. Their basic rules take the form of codes - huge statutes which set out the laws in detail, number by number, along with the central concepts and doctrines. For the most part the judges have little or no power to add to or subtract from the law, which is entirely contained in the codes. Their function is to interpret these rules.
The common law on the other hand was essentially created by judges as they decided actual cases. Judges in the higher courts dealt with appeals from lower courts and, in pursuit of a real rather than formal justice, took account of the experience of real litigants and real situations. One of the reasons why contemporary markets thrive in common-law-based nations is because Napoleonic, codified systems entrench bureaucracy. The dead hand of the state is heavier where there is little legal flexibility. The discretion vested in judges provides just enough 'give' to prevent rigidity. Even today, when large parts of the law are created by statutes passed in parliament, the judges have a significant role in developing the law. While our judges are drawn from the ranks of practising lawyers with everyday experience of representing clients, judges in the civil law system are civil servants. judging is a career from the start and the training of judges is separate from that of lawyers.

The civil system is an inquisitorial system, whereas our system is adversarial. In the UK's new environment of consensus politics, emotional literacy and victimhood, doing battle in the courts is considered by many to be outmoded. The criticism is that the system is too adversarial: there should be no opposing sides in the pursuit of truth. Yet the Socratic method of debate, seeking to reach truth through testing of a position, is rigorous and effective.

One of this governments attempts to curb basic freedoms, has failed in the House of Lords by a large margin, 309 against 118. Huzzah! One more ill conceived and ill thought out bills bites the dust. When will they learn? (Sadly, on present evidence, never)

From The House of Lords, October 13th 2008, some extracts from Lord Dear's speech: [highlights are mine]

no other country in the western world that has a common law system like ours—an accusatorial rather than an inquisitorial system—has extended detention without charge to 42 days. In fact, no country has gone as far as 28 days. The nearest comparison is Australia with 12 days, and all the rest of the comparable countries operate with single figures. I need hardly remind your Lordships that in America it is two days and in Canada it is one day. So why the marked disparity? Those countries often face a threat similar to our own. How is it that they manage and we apparently cannot?
...
there is almost universal opposition to what the Government propose. It almost beggars belief that any Administration could embark on such a course. Just look at the list of those who oppose the Government: the Law Society; Amnesty; Liberty; Justice; the previous Attorney-General; the previous Solicitor-General and Lord Chancellor; and successive Directors of Public Prosecutions. There are many others, but perhaps the most important person to note in that list is the Director of Public Prosecutions.
...
It has been roundly condemned, in particular by Mr Andy Hayman, who until recently was the assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan Police charged with co-ordinating all national counterterrorism operations. In a long article in the Times on 6 October, he wrote a number of things in virtually rubbishing this Bill. He wrote:

“The Bill is about politics and it won't work”.

He also wrote that,

“the Government's current proposals are not fit for purpose: they are bureaucratic, convoluted and unworkable”.

I invite noble Lords to agree with me that he should know what he is talking about.

----------------------

Now, hopefully someone will address the European Arrest Warrant, which, based on the inquisitorial system, inflicts detention, without charge, on British citizens in EU gaols for 180 days or more. 

At Westminster Magistrate's Court, today, The Greek application for Andrew Symeou to be extradited has been postponed until 30th October. Read more on the BBC Website, and note comments such as:

Giving evidence, Mr Symeou's friend Charles Klitou, 19, from north London, said he was physically and verbally intimidated during an eight-hour interrogation.

He said: "I got hit by the big guy (an officer) with a fist quite hard.

"The big guy left the room and came back with a black police bat and was tapping it in his hand. I couldn't think, I was just sitting there waiting to be hit."

Mr Klitou said he was scared and so agreed to sign a statement handwritten in Greek identifying his friend.[my emphasis]

He said his jaw was swollen and sore after being hit by the officer, although an X-ray taken in the UK showed no damage, the court was told.

Another friend, Chris Kyriacou, 20, said he was punched 10 times by Greek police.

'No jurisdiction'

He said: "He (an officer) grabbed my throat and just squeezed and I felt like I couldn't breathe."

Mr Kyriacou told the court that he was also asked to sign a handwritten statement [my emphasis again] implicating his friend.

and our "puppet government", as directed by the EU, has recently made it even easier for EU Arrest Warrants to be enacted.

More here - UKIP supports Andrew
and here - Justice Andrew Symeou
and here - Nigel Farage highlights the plight of Andrew Symeou
and here - background to the case at The Telegraph.co.uk

The signing of Magna Carta at Runnymead forced Kings to honour the freedoms of the individual for centuries to come and so a system of law that had developed since before Alfred the Great gave priority to the freedom of the individual, in Britain. Common Law was established. Continental Europe developed its system of law from the Justinian code which, in action, is based on the rights of the state over the individual.
 

In 2004, The Freedom Association (TFA), in its "CAMPAIGN FOR REJECTION OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT" said the following:

"Our own system has historically served to protect the freedom of the individual and the principle of innocence until proven otherwise" said Mr. Gill.

And in a further letter to The Times on Friday August 1, Mr. Gill warned that the EAW introduces a continental system of justice which effectively ensures the supremacy of the state over the rights of the individual. Mr. Gill wrote "On the continent the law of habeas corpus is unknown, the right to trial by jury does not exist and the presumption of innocence is not the starting point from which judiciaries necessarily proceed. In Britain the law is designed to protect the individual citizen against false accusation, arbitrary arrest and wrongful imprisonment".

The list is growing of those who thought that the EU was just some sort of boring political topic when they found themselves wrongly accused of something in Continental Europe and were whisked away to face not 24 hours or even 42 days in a continental cell, without charge, but 18 months or more. Andrew Symeou is the latest victim, but it looks as though the Greek authorities have not provided the documents required by the 3rd September deadline, so he might be spared this fate.

The TFA goes on to warn us:

British justice is under threat from a Government which does not value our unique system of safeguards to protect the innocent and is prepared to sacrifice habeas corpus and trial by jury for political expediency and to be seen as "good Europeans". ...

In October the Government suffered two defeats in the House of Lords at Report Stage of the Extradition Bill. The Freedom Association had been campaigning for over a year for this result and we are delighted our hard work has finally paid off. On October 28 in a press release issued to coincide with the Lords defeats, TFA Chairman Christopher Gill said “For hundreds of years the British people have been protected against false accusation, arbitrary arrest and wrongful imprisonment.  The law of Habeas Corpus has meant that none of us can be held in custody for more than 24 hours unless the police charge us with an offence and have reasonable evidence to support that charge. We are delighted the House of Lords has upheld the rights of the British people and rejected the European Arrest Warrant. ...

In January 2004, as the Arrest Warrant came into force, The Freedom Association predicted an increase in miscarriages of justice affecting British citizens. In a press release issued on January 7 2004, TFA Chairman Christopher Gill said "It is a plain fact that justice systems operating in many European countries do not contain the essential safeguards which currently exist here in the UK. The EAW will also cover crimes such as racism and xenophobia which are interpreted differently in different European states. We are extremely concerned that there will be an increase in the number of miscarriages of justice which will result from this legislation".

The TFA declared victory only too soon.

So while Parliament is in recess, why does the government think it can sneak through a fundamental change to our freedoms without anyone noticing it? To be Good Europeans? Increasingly this horror of a Government is no longer representing you, but representing the EU to you. 800 years of history mean nothing to it, so it seems. Your freedoms are worthless on the altar of European Integration. In its article "The government has welcomed EU plans to allow British citizens to be tried in their absence in other member states." The BBC reports:

British subjects could also be extradited automatically at the request of other EU states under the proposals.

Ministers say it will prevent them fleeing to other member states to escape justice and increase co-operation between legal systems.

Under the EU plan, courts would be allowed to pass judgement in criminal cases and when issuing fines or European Arrest Warrants without the defendants being present.

People accused in their absence would then have the right to a retrial or the right of appeal when extradited.

The plan was backed by the European Parliament by 609 votes to 60 and now goes to the Council of Ministers for final approval.

It is designed to end uncertainty among member states about whether to recognise in absentia judgements and to make the European Arrest Warrant more effective.
   
Now we can be dragged away to another country to rot in jail without there even being a pretence of a fair trial. Nigel Farage UKIP leader

But opponents say it would represent a major change to British law, where trials in absentia were until 2001 banned and are still extremely rare.

Pieter Cleppe, of pressure group Open Europe, said: "This proposal could open the door to serious miscarriages of justice and ministers should not be supporting it."

Conservative justice and home affairs spokesman Philip Bradbourn told The Evening Standard: "It goes against one of the most fundamental cornerstones of British justice."

All this from your very inappropriately named "Ministry for Justice" 

The Ministry of Justice said the plan would "increase legal certainty and improve mutual trust amongst member states".

A spokesman said: "The initiative will ensure that there is clarity as to when the courts of one member state recognise a decision taken by another member state in a person's absence.

"This will help ensure that a person cannot escape justice by fleeing to another member state, whilst also ensuring that persons are only returned where to do so is appropriate - for example where there will be a retrial."

We have a perfectly good extradition system designed to protect the individual from states whose laws are fundamentally different from our own, but this does not serve those who are so 'head over heals' in love with the EU
that they are blind to its major flaws"

From the Crown Prosecution Service web site
-------------

“Definition
Extradition is the formal procedure for returning persons located in one country to another country for the purpose of criminal prosecution, to be sentenced for offences for which they have been convicted or for the carrying out of a sentence which has already been imposed.”

Information (accused persons) The warrant must contain:
Particulars of identity;
Details of any other warrant issued in the requesting territory for that person;
Particulars of the facts;
Particulars of the relevant foreign law under which the conduct is alleged to constitute an offence;
Details of any sentence which may be imposed in the event of conviction.
Role of CPS
In Part 1 export extradition cases where the subject of the extradition proceedings has been arrested in England or Wales, CPS provides representation for the requesting judicial authority in proceedings before the English courts.
...
All export extradition cases are dealt with at first instance in City of Westminster Magistrates' Court by Special Crime Division of CPS HQ.

-----------------

While the media make a big fuss about the 42 days detention without charge, yet another individual joins the list of those who can be held for 18 months without charge and this with little fuss, except, of course, by him. So another of those small changes take place as we become absorbed by the European Union government with few taking any notice, understanding the change or even caring.

Who will be next? If you are taking a holiday in mainland Europe, this summer, it just might be you, so be warned.

Now to the case of Andrew Symeou. Last July, Jonathon Hiles, 18, of Cardiff, died after he suffered head injuries in a club on the Greek island of Zakynthos.

According to The BBC:

Mr Symeou, a student at Bournemouth University, was arrested on June 26 at his home, after a European arrest warrant was issued by Greek authorities. His passport was also seized by police.

During the short hearing John Jones, for Mr Symeou, said Greek police had obtained witness statements using force and he believed Symeou could not expect fair treatment if he was extradited.

Mr Symeou's solicitor, John Tipple, said after the hearing: "For justice to be done it needs to be done here."

Until today, Denzil Hiles, 58, of Cardiff, Jonathon's father, has kept quiet about the case, but has felt pressured to speak out as he struggles with the media coverage surrounding the man accused of his son's manslaughter and his fight to avoid facing a trial in Greece. This has put his family and Jonathon's girlfriend under immense stress and some family members have criticised him for not speaking out. According to David James of The South Wales Echo:

It is being treated as a test case about new EU arrest warrants, which allow suspects in serious crimes to be extradited to the country where they are alleged to have committed the crime, without evidence being presented first in their home state.

According to the European Commission this has been “made possible by a high level of mutual trust and cooperation between countries who share the same highly-demanding conception of the rule of law”. ...

Mr Hiles said: “If Andrew doesn’t go to Greece, he doesn’t get a trial and Jonathan doesn’t get justice. They are making an issue that isn’t there. They are making this into a trial by media about whether he goes back but it’s got nothing to do with that.

“We are all part of the EU. We abide by the same kinds of rules and regulations. If Greece’s record of human rights is so terrible, why is it part of the EU?

It is here that Mr Hiles completely misses the point. We do NOT abide by the same rules, or didn't until recently and few have noticed the change. In the UK, we used to have that subtle distinction between the European Napoleonic system of justice where you are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and the UK Common Law system where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty and therefore could not be held for more than 72 hours, 28 days, 42 days, without charge.

But like the 10p tax debacle, we probably wont notice or care until it affects us personally. remember this when you are locked up in a mainland European prison for 18months, without charge, without any redress or appeal. Like many Brits, you might just be released at the end, again without charge or any comeback. Welcome to your new friendly E.U. Goverment!

(Symeou is due back in the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on August 12 to face an extradition hearing.)

http://www.justice-for-symeou.com/