British Court enforces EU Arrest Warrant against Andrew Symeou

On 30th October, at Westminster Magistrates Court, District Judge Quentin Purdy decided that Andrew Symeou will be sent to Greece to stand trial over the death of roller hockey star Jonny Hiles.

I feel for both the Hiles and the Symeou families over this tragedy but for different reasons. The Hiles family want to see justice over the death of their son, while the Symeou family are victims of a slow transfer away from the English Law that has served us well for centuries towards Continental Law where the rights of the individual are of lesser concern. As I've stated in previous posts and as Wales Online quotes Gerard Batten, the UKIP MEP for London as saying

""The evidence against Andrew Symeou would not stand up in a British court for five minutes." This should be a major concern for any British Citizen.

Just one more of the many concerns in this case is the way witness statements were gathered in Greece, although Judge Purdy seemed to dismiss this concern describing Charles Klitou and Chris Kyriacou witnesses as

"far from entirely satisfactory witnesses" ..."Given the ordeal they recount, violence at the hands of police in a foreign land, the oral testimony in each individual's case was surprisingly uninspiring," (Quote from Wales Online again)

EXTRADITION: We have, in place, extradition procedures with many countries, procedures that are designed to protect British Citizens.

My non-lawyer understanding is this. So someone being extradited has his or her (I'll just use the generic 'he', from here on) case heard before an English Court, where the evidence is presented and he has the opportunity to defend himself. A decision, on extradition, is then made, based on the evidence.

The European Arrest Warrant changed all that. Now someone can be arrested on pure suspicion. I have read of cases of British people arrested because of a vendetta or mistaken identity where the aggrieved person knew the local police well enough to get a warrant issued, just on suspicion, and in the case of one British subject, spent 2 years in a Spanish prison before he was released, because it was mistaken identity. He had no right of redress, no apology - nothing. In the UK we have become used to a better standard of law, but sadly have become complacent.


In an article in The New Statesman, MEP Gerald Batten reminds readers of the background to this case, and of the worrying lack of evidence:

The only evidence against Mr Symeou consists of physical descriptions of the assailant that don't match him, and the statements extracted from his friends under duress.

On 12th August Mr Symeou found himself in the Horseferry Magistrates Court. The European Arrest Warrant was introduced into force on 1st January 2004 under the usual justification of protecting us against organised crime and terrorism. All that is required for the deportation of a suspect under an EAW is basic information about their identity and the alleged offence.
There are thirty-two categories of crime for which extradition may be sought, some of them not specific offences under English law. There is no provision for a British court to be allowed to assure itself that there is a proper case for the accused to answer by means of examining prima facie evidence, and there is no provision for the magistrate hearing the extradition case, or indeed the home secretary, to have any discretion to refuse extradition if they believe or know that an injustice is being done.


The safeguards against misuse are absolutely minimal: provided that the correct information has been provided (which is minimal) then a British citizen can be extradited to another EU member state with as much ceremony as posting a parcel. Andrew Symeou's lawyer was only able to oppose extradition because he had managed to obtain copies of the Greek authority's paperwork and contended that they had not followed their own legal procedures correctly.
The European Arrest Warrant is another manifestation of the European Union's headlong flight into harmonisation of all things, in this case Europe's legal systems. This has profound implications for all of us: any one of us, our children, wives, husbands, relatives or friends could face extradition to any EU country without a British court being able to hear even basic evidence and being satisfied there is a case to answer.

 

 


For completeness, I've included an extract on Extradition from The Crown Prosecution Service website. Note that the District Judge must:

Be satisfied that the request contains admissible evidence of the offence sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the person.

and then compare that requirement with that for Extradition under the EU Arrest Warrant

Extradition Hearing

At the Extradition Hearing the District Judge must:

  • Decide whether the documentation sent to the Court by the Home Secretary complies with the Act.
  • Decide whether the individual arrested is the person named on the warrant.
  • Decide whether the offence detailed in the request is an extradition offence.
  • Be satisfied that the person has been given copies of the request, the Home Secretary's certificate and any relevant Order in Council.
  • Decide whether any of the bars to extradition apply.
  • Be satisfied that the request contains admissible evidence of the offence sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the person. This requirement does not apply in respect of extradition requests from the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
  • Decide whether the extradition would be compatible with the person's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
  • If the District Judge is satisfied on all these issues they must send the case to the Home Secretary who decides whether to order extradition.

Appeals

Appeals against the decisions of the District Judge and/or the Home Secretary go to the Administrative Court. Notice of appeals must be given within 14 days of the decision. The Administrative Court must start to hear the appeal within 76 days of the notice. It is possible to appeal from the Administrative Court to the House of Lords, but this can only happen if the Administrative Court certifies that the appeal involves a point of law of general public importance and either the Administrative Court or the House of Lords grants leave to appeal.

European Arrest Warrant (EAW) Procedures:

 

The first hearing after arrest is known as the initial hearing. It is conducted in front of a District Judge. At the initial hearing the District Judge must:

  • Decide whether the individual arrested is the person named on the warrant.
  • Fix a date for the start of the extradition hearing within 21 days of the date of arrest.
  • Inform the person about the content of the EAW.
  • Explain to the person that he/she may consent to return.
  • Decide whether to grant bail or remand the individual in custody pending the Extradition Hearing.

Extradition Hearing
  • At this hearing the District Judge must decide a number of issues, such as:
  • Is the offence an extraditable offence?
  • Are there any bars to the extradition?
  • Is the extradition compatible with the person's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights?
  • If the District Judge is satisfied that these issues have been met then they must make an order for the person's extradition.

 

 

When are we going to wake up out of our complacency, and understand just how our government is undermining principles of freedom that have protected us all for all of our lives? If you don't understand these changes, then I recommend that you do not holiday in any European Country that uses Napoleonic Law, until you understand the fundamental differences between this and British Common law.

 

See also

The UKIP Blog

Posted on 31 Oct, 2008 by ethelred

Filed under Law


« Prev item • Next item »

Comments

No comments yet. You can be the first!

Leave comment