Individual Rights Pt 2 - Andrew Symeou and the EAW

Private Eye

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 sole 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 coroners 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 responded:

 

...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

A European Arrest Warrant, valid throughout the European Union has replaced extradition procedures between Member States of the enlarged Europe. Such a warrant may be issued by a national issuing judicial authority if the person whose return is sought is accused of an offence for which the maximum period of the penalty is at least a year in prison, or if he or she has been sentenced to a prison term of at least four months... Simplifying and improving the surrendering procedure between EU Member States was 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..

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.

  1.  

 

Idris Francis, who describes himself as a professional heckler, has been trying to highlight this slow destruction of our freedoms since 1997. I include part of a letter of complaint written by him, as it summarises some of these issues so well.

 

I first started attending fringe meetings at all Party Conferences in1998 to try to expose the EU's 1997 plan Corpus Juris which theydescribed as "an embryo of a future EU criminal code" and I was one ofwhat Philip Johnston of the Telegraph described on November 30th 1998as "a small number of concerned individuals" who had forced this issueinto the public domain. From the EU's point of view of "ever closerunion" and its objective of becoming a State in its own right, it is entirely logical of course to want a single legal system for the wholeof the EU. Unfortunately for us, Ireland and Malta (the only threemember states having our system of common law with fundamentalprinciples developed over many centuries) the great majority of othermember states have Napoleonic, inquisitorial legal systems whichrecognise few, if any, of our most important principles.

 

It was therefore no surprise in 1997 to find that Corpus Juris (ISBN no2-7178-3344-7)* explicitly abolishes habeas corpus (by allowingimprisonment without trial or any public hearing for up to 6 months,renewable for 3 months at a time without stated limit) - article20.3.g; abolishes jury trial (which does not exist anywhere on theContinent in a form we would recognise) and lay magistrates, in favourof professional judges - article 26.1. It brings back double jeopardyby allowing the Prosecution to appeal against acquittal - article 27.2.It also proposes a European Public Prosecutor who would be able to order the British Public Prosecutor to do what the EU wants - article18.5; and many other fundamentally unacceptable things too.

 

While Corpus Juris was explicitly rejected at the end of 1998, by thethen Home Office Minister Kate Hoey, who in reply to ParliamentaryQuestions from two opposition MPs promised to veto it if it was everformally proposed, many elements of it have continued to be pushedthrough, piecemeal, by our government over the past 10 years, disguisedas domestic measures. Why do you think the Government pushed for 90days and now 42 days' (6 weeks') detention on no evidence, other than as a stepping stone towards Corpus Juris' 6 months plus 3 months at atime without stated limit, so that in due course they can stand claimthat the differences are only of degree and not of kind and not reallyso great as to matter?

 

Do you not realise that the EU sees terrorist threats and indeed thecurrent financial problems - as a "beneficial crisis" allowing them toseize yet more control? Do you still not understand that the EU ArrestWarrant, very much in the news with the arrest of Dr. Toben by Britishpolice when passing through Heathrow, pushed through supposedly as anurgent measure against terrorists, is now being used to extraditepeople for what they think and say, even when they represent no crimehere? Do you not understand that the EUAW requires not even prima facieevidence of an offence having been committed, not even a British policeman but any "authorised person" to carry out the arrest? If youdid not realise at the meeting but surely must now, that extraditionunder the EUAW can be carried out even in respect of trials in absentiaand that such trials, unknown in this country for centuries, haverecently been allowed in a small number of cases? Ms Chakrabarti wasquoted as being concerned over this and (rightly) attributing it to theEU. Her statement (quoted in the Sunday Telegraph online edition of21/09/08) said there should be a right of scrutiny by a local court,but did not attack the main point that most EU countries allow, andalways have allowed, people to be tried and convicted in their absence,something that our British system has never accepted. Nor that this isjust one of the radical differences that have always separated theBritish idea of justice from that prevailing on the continent. She alsostated that "this is not pro-or anti EU, but just about what sort of EUwe want". The problem with that statement is perhaps illustrated by afamous cartoon showing a fish, caught within a net, saying to oneoutside the net "Personally, I have always thought it better tonegotiate from within". In other words, the sort of EU we get is whatthe EU is utterly determined to impose upon us, and nothing whatever todo with what we want. As should surely have become obvious over thepast 40 years of lies, weasel words and clicks of innumerable ratchets.

 

Why do you think that jury trial and lay magistrates are under threat,if not for the same reason, to reduce to vanishing point the differencebetween our legal system and theirs? Why has double jeopardy beenallowed, other than for the same reason? Why do you think theGovernment tried to merge our 43 police forces into regional forceswhich (surprise, surprise) happened largely to coincide with EUregions? Why did that thoroughly evil man Blunkett seek politicalcontrol of the police on a national level - a critical breach of theprinciple of separation of powers essential to prevent too much powerbeing concentrated into too few hands? For how long do you supposethose regional police forces would remain answerable to our Parliament rather than directly to EU politicians you surely realise that manypolice forces on the Continent are, whether de facto or de jure, underthe direct control of politicians?


Posted on 21 Nov, 2008 by alfred

Filed under Freedom


« Prev item • Next item »

Comments

No comments yet. You can be the first!

Leave comment