In a letter published in today’s Telegraph, half a dozen senior retired judges call for Britain to “opt back in” to the European Arrest Warrant system. Parliament is expected to vote next week on the government’s proposal to remain in the EAW system and other key European justice measures.
The letter’s signed by the former Supreme Court President Lord Phillips together with two of Britain’s former judges of the European Court of Justice, Sir Konrad Schiemann and Sir David Edward; the former British Advocate General of the ECJ, Sir Francis Jacobs; and retired Court of Appeal judges Sir Henry Brooke and Sir Anthony Hooper. They are joined by a couple of dozen leading barristers and solicitors, former senior police and political figures including the former Home Secretary Charles Clarke and the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation Lord Carlile QC, as well as leading legal academics.
Without the European arrest warrant, they say,
other EU members may be unable speedily to extradite suspects like Hussain Osman or Jeremy Forrest to Britain – both in jail after use of the EAW.
They warn that Britain also risks becoming a safe haven for fugitives from justice,
a handful of them British citizens, but the vast majority foreign nationals wanted for crimes elsewhere in Europe.
The letter cites recent statutory changes it says should help prevent long pre-trial detention, and prevent European arrest warrants being used to pursue minor offences. It argues that Britain can only lead reform of EU criminal justice legislation by being part of the system.
There is no credible alternative to the EAW … Resort to international law on extradition would be slow and ineffective.
I strongly support the case made in the letter. The government would be mad to withdraw from the European arrest warrant which, while (like other laws) imperfect, is the best system yet devised for ensuring criminal suspects face justice regardless of European borders.
Unless Britain wishes to be wholly unable to secure the return of British fugitives from abroad and to extradite foreign suspects from our shores, some form of international cooperation is necessary whether under the EAW or the European Convention on Extradition that preceded it. And if you’re going to cooperate with other countries in this field, you might as well adopt the best, simplest and quickest system, rather than revert to the less satisfactory, slower yet equally “European” arrangements that went before.
Fortunately, Labour MPs’ votes are likely to ensure Britain sensibly stays within the system in spite of a significant Tory backbench rebellion. What can these Conservatives be thinking? Aren’t they the same Eurosceptics who hate the way Abu Qatada delayed his departure to face trial in Jordan? Who think foreign criminals should be removed from the UK as speedily as possible? And who detest the idea that EU migrants have rights to stay here regardless of their alleged conduct?
Why on earth do they of all people want, by withdrawing from the EAW, to give EU suspects more legal rights than they already have, and new opportunities to appeal and delay being sent abroad to face justice? It’s beyond me.
Carl Gardner2014-11-06T11:27:55+00:00
“It’s beyond me.”
That can only be because you’re, rather charitably I think, searching for meaning where there is none. I suspect that the current opposition to the EAW is a visceral (if not politically calculated) reaction to anything with “Europe” in its name; “Eurosceptic” is too generous for its detractors. Europhobic is more appropriate.