You are in:
One-Way Traffic
Britain might be forced into another unbalanced extradition treaty, this time with the EU.
Remember when a government's primary duty was to protect its citizens? Not Britain's, that much is clear. Readers will remember the extraordinary eagerness with which the government signed up to a 2003 extradition treaty with the US following the September 11 terror attacks; one which, we were assured, was designed to expedite the extradition of terrorist suspects, but which was subsequently used to bring the "NatWest Three" fraudsters to trial.
High profile opponents of the extradition argued that the 2006 extradition broke the spirit of the agreement - and the British government's promise - as it was being invoked in a case that had no terrorist connection, and that the US had yet to sign the reciprocal agreement.
No other European nation had, or would, agree to such a one-sided agreement.
Now, the EU is getting in on the act.
Not extradition, but plans to create what the European Parliament describes as "a common area for justice, which requires the mutual recognition of criminal law judgments by member states.”
This could lead to, as the Times reports, Britons being tried in the absence in foreign courts.
For now, the Times speaks of traffic, credit card and "other offences." The Daily Mail is more specific, warning that alongside serious violent offences, Britons could be tried for "xenophobia" - a "crime" which isn't even recognised by British law.
Now that the amendment to the European Arrest Warrant has been passed by the EU Parliament, it goes to the Council of Ministers. Civil rights groups and opposition MPs are alarmed.
""Philip Bradbourn, the Conservative justice and home affairs spokesman in the European Parliament, said: “This initiative would enable courts to pass judgments in absentia. It goes against one of the most fundamental corner-stones of British justice – that the accused has a right to defend himself at trial. If other EU countries want to go ahead with this proposal that’s their choice, but the British Government should have no part [of it].”"
""The European Criminal Bar Association opposed the plans, saying that they were “by their very nature a violation of the fundamental procedural rights of the accused”.
"In an open letter to all MEPs it says: “The rights of European citizens will be further undermined because in absentia judgments will result in the surrender of European citizens on the basis of a judgment given at a trial in which they never had the chance to participate.
"“One member state could issue a European arrest warrant on the basis of an in absentia judgment, although the accused never had the chance to be heard – for example, after a traffic accident or the use of a credit card in that country.”" (The Times)
There has been criticism that the use of the warrant to date has not respected the EU's principle of proportionality. We reported last year that the extradition of a piglet rustler, someone who stole two car tyres and another who was slightly over the drunk-driving limit.
Minor drugs offences have caused European arrest warrants to be issued too, including detention of 0.45 grams of cannabis, 1.5 grams of marijuana, 0.15 grams of heroin, three tablets of ecstasy.
Other critics of the warrant argue that as citizens could be tried for offences which aren't crimes in their own countries, the warrant undermines national justice - which, as the EU Parliament in praising the concept of a single judicial area, demonstrates is the point.
Furthermore, it has been argued that the offences covered by the Warrant are not strictly defined, but instead a list of "very vaguely defined categories of undesirable conduct", which could vary from nation to nation.
The 32 offences governed by the European Arrest Warrant are as follows:
- participation in a criminal organisation,
- terrorism,
- trafficking in human beings,
- sexual exploitation of children and child pornography,
- illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,
- illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives,
- corruption,
- fraud, including that affecting the financial interests of the European Communities within the meaning of the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests,
- laundering of the proceeds of crime,
- counterfeiting currency, including of the euro,
- computer-related crime,
- environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in endangered plant species and varieties,
- facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence,
- murder, grievous bodily injury,
- illicit trade in human organs and tissue,
- kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking,
- racism and xenophobia,
- organised or armed robbery,
- illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art,
- swindling,
- racketeering and extortion,
- counterfeiting and piracy of products,
- forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein,
- forgery of means of payment,
- illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters,
- illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials,
- trafficking in stolen vehicles,
- rape,
- arson,
- crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,
- unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships,
- sabotage
Some of these are obvious enough - though even offences as serious as rape are subject to violent disagreement on definition. The others - "computer-related crime?"; "corruption"; "racism and xenophobia" constitute a legal minefield, in which the likely outcome is that national courts surrender yet more power to a regulatory EU authority which will be required to define each crime - and thus create a common legal system de facto.
The British have agreed to much of this: But how long before yet more UK citizens are being tried for crimes that they didn't know they were committing?
More on the European Arrest Warrant here, here and here.
