video by Gerard Batten London MEP
On 8 May 2014 13:24, <Sonyaporter@aol.com> wrote:
17 arrest warrants a day on EU orders
The European Arrest Warrent
In the UK when person is arrested and put in prison, family members are informed by the police. They can contact a lawyer and send a telegram to the prisoner so he can name that lawyer as his defender to the authorities who will then notify him of the date and hour of the first interrogation so that the lawyer can be present. If a prisoner is unable to name a private lawyer of his own then the prosecutor (who is also the chief investigator, a judicial figure) will choose one for him.
However he will have to pay this lawyer if he wants to be defended properly (this is the opposite of Britain, where the defendant can choose his lawyer, and if impecunious, the state will pay his fees), unless he can produce a “certificate of poverty” in which case the state will pay, ie he will get legal aid (in theory!).
The first EAW interrogation takes place a day or two after arrest, behind closed doors in a special room in the prison. It is conducted by the investigating judge, and sometimes his colleague, “the judge of the preliminary investigations”, is present and may also ask questions. The defendant must have his lawyer present, and there will be a clerk to the “court” who will record the proceedings – which the defendant must then sign.
Nobody else is present.
They inform the prisoner of the crime that he is “imputed with” and on which he is being “investigated” (it is not exact to say “charged with”, because they have not yet collected enough evidence to start a prosecution). This procedure enables continental lawyers, and their UK apologists, to say that “just like in Britain, the defendant appears ‘in court’ a day or two after his arrest”.
What they fail to note is that in Britain this “appearance in court” is in a public hearing, and the defendant can demand and obtain that prima facie evidence against him must be produced. Also in England it is the police who conduct the investigation, and the court is made up of magistrates (originally lay magistrates, now largely replaced by these new-fangled professional “district judges”).
Bail is also decided in England at once in this public hearing, and the onus is on the police to produce good reasons if they want to oppose it.
In Italy (and I suspect in other continental jurisdictions) bail, called “provisional liberty” must be applied for by the lawyer in a special plea presented to the judges, who decide on it in the privacy of their offices. If they decide against it appeal can be made to a higher court, staffed by other members of the career judiciary. The whole process can take weeks or months, while the defendant languishes in jail.
Confusion arises because in Britain we talk about “No detention without charge”. Here again the continentals and their UK apologists can say “but it is the same over there, the prisoner is told the charge during his first hearing (actually interrogation)”. The difference is that what the continentals call a “charge” is merely a statement of the crime on which the prisoner is being investigated and for which they are seeking evidence of his guilt. For us, a charge cannot be brought until fairly sound evidence of guilt has ALREADY been collected, and can be exhibited in open court. This is why I prefer to say that Habeas Corpus means “No detention without EVIDENCE” rather than “No detention without charge”.
During this time the lawyer makes pleas for bail, or for his client to be transferred to a prison that is closer to his family so they can visit him, meets him and discusses his defence strategy with him.
All members of the career judiciary act as judges and as prosecutors/investigators at different times. They are all colleagues (in Italy and elsewhere, in some countries their careers are separate). They will never have acted as defenders – a completely separate profession.
I could go on describing the grisly process… enough for the time being.
Perhaps you can now see why the claim by Mrs May “We will extradite people for prosecution purposes but not for investigation purposes” is meaningless in that context. The Italians, and others, make no hard and fast distinction between the two phases. An investigation is always “against” a suspect, so it is a part of the prosecution process.
The possibilities for arbitrary misuse and abuse of these fearsome powers are enormous.
Perhaps you can begin to see why…
THE UK MUST REPUDIATE THE EU ARREST WARRANT!!!
Subject: Re: Fwd: 17 arrest warrants a day on EU orders – Telegraph
>Dear Mr Grieve,
>I have been drawn into this correspondence between yourself and Ms
>Gray-Fisk, with some others, as one of the very few people who, over
>the last thirty years or more, residing in Rome, has studied the
>deep differences between continental and British criminal
>procedures. There appears not to be even any chair on this subject
>in any UK university. Though not a professional nor an academic
>lawyer, I have published on the subject in English law journals and
>other publications, been quoted in both Houses of Parliament, and in
>an Italian law journal which was quoted in the Italian Senate.
>I feel that the matter is of great importance for it is the criminal
>law and its procedures that not only serve to identify and punish
>criminals, but also to spare innocent people, wrongly suspected,
>from being ground up in the penal machinery. It is therefore an
>indispensable bulwark of our freedom, and I mean basic, personal,
>freedom from arbitrary arrest and wrongful imprisonment.
>In your reply to Ms Gray-Fisk, you write: “the Home Secretary has
>indicated that before we opt back into the Arrest Warrant, we will
>enact our own legislation to restrict its scope, and prevent its use
>I have written a critique of Mrs May’s plan, as she stated it in the
>Commons, published in the current issue of Freedom Today. I attach a
>copy of the article (one side of an A4).
>An essential difference between the English-speaking world and the
>European mainland, as regards arrest and pre-trial detention, which
>she fails to address, is that under the provisions of the
>Napoleonic-inquisitorial system used in continental countries,
>suspects are all too often arrested BEFORE any substantial prima
>facie EVIDENCE against them has been collected. And they can then be
>held in prison for months, and sometimes even longer, “pending
>investigations”. And during this time they have no right to a public hearing.
>This brings me on to the safeguards for the innocent suspect – you
>refer to their “right to challenge the matter in the [British]
>courts [prior to being extradited] if it can be shown that they will
>not receive a fair hearing, or fair treatment, compatible with the
>principles of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
>I address this issue in section VI of my submission last year to the
>House of Lords, which can (or could) be viewed on the Parliament
>website, though minus two of the three appendices, and can be viewed
>in full here:
>The main point I make is that the ECHR (and the ECFR) are quite
>inadequate yardsticks, for they ignore a number of procedural
>safeguards which for Britons and other English-speakers are taken
>completely for granted (e.g. Habeas Corpus, Trial by Independent
>Jury, etc etc). I give details in the piece cited, on pages 10 and
>11. Where these matters are not completely ignored, e.g. article 6
>of ECHR, they are alluded to in language so vague that it can
>accommodate the systems of signatories as different as Britain on
>the one hand, and Rumania or Italy on the other.
>So the big question that many of us ask is, WHEN is the government
>going to respond to Nigel Farage’s challenge to Cameron to repudiate
>the European Arrest Warrant, published in the Daily Telegraph on
>29th May? So far the response has been a complete silence, it seems.
>Perhaps the question is awkward, but a reply must surely be
>forthcoming, if we are to believe in the principle of accountable government!
>With best regards,
>Torquil Dick-Erikson M.A. (Oxon. – Magd., matric. 1964),
>>>>>This is not the reply to my later email to Grieve with Farage’s
>>>>>excellent article -‘Match Your Words with Action, David Cameron’
>>>>> – but nevertheless it is his response to the EAW.
>>>>>All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
>>>>>Edmund Burke 1729 -1797
>>>>>Sent: 20/05/2014 10:51:50 GMT Daylight Time
>>>>>Subj: RE: 17 arrest warrants a day on EU orders – Telegraph
>>>>>Dear Mrs Gray-Fisk
>>>>>Thank you for your email of the 8th May about the European
>>>>>We are currently bound by the European Arrest Warrant because
>>>>>the previous Labour Government signed up to it. It forms,
>>>>>however, part of the measures from which we could choose not to
>>>>>opt back into, because of the special provisions on opt outs
>>>>>that we secured in the Lisbon Treaty.
>>>>>The Government has taken the view that we should opt back into
>>>>>35 of the Justice and Home Affairs agreements that we were bound
>>>>>to previously when the old ones lapse on the 31st November 2014.
>>>>>A decision has also been taken not to opt back into approximately 100 others.
>>>>>The basis for opting back into the European Arrest Warrant is
>>>>>that it has proved to be a very important tool in dealing with
>>>>>crime on a cross-border basis. It has facilitated the
>>>>>extradition to the United Kingdom of dangerous terrorists from
>>>>>other European countries, and ensured that this happens
>>>>>speedily. It is based on principles of reciprocity of a kind
>>>>>commonly found in the 13,200 treaties the United Kingdom has
>>>>>signed up to since 1815.
>>>>>The Government does, however, share the concern you express,
>>>>>that the European Arrest Warrant has been overused for matters
>>>>>that are regarded as trivial. For those reasons, the Home
>>>>>Secretary has indicated that before we opt back into the Arrest
>>>>>Warrant, we will enact our own legislation to restrict its
>>>>>scope, and prevent its use being abused. This follows on from
>>>>>such restrictions being successfully imposed by countries such as Germany.
>>>>>In your email, you express concern at the standard of justice
>>>>>that an individual received in another European state, to which
>>>>>they might be sent for trial under the Warrant. These concerns
>>>>>are legitimate, but they do already exist in respect of the old
>>>>>processes of extradition. It is worth bearing in mind that all
>>>>>persons, whose arrest and extradition is sought under the
>>>>>Warrant, have a right to challenge the matter in the courts if
>>>>>it can be shown that they will not receive a fair hearing, or
>>>>>fair treatment, compatible with the principles of the European
>>>>>Convention on Human Rights.
>>>>>With best wishes,
>>>>>Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP
>>>>>MP for Beaconsfield
>>>>>House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
>>>>>Tel: 020 7219 6220
>>>>>From: <mailto:DGrayFisk@aol.com>DGrayFisk@aol.com [
>>>>>Sent: 08 May 2014 14:58
>>>>>To: GRIEVE, Dominic
>>>>>Subject: 17 arrest warrants a day on EU orders – Telegraph
>>>>>Dear Mr Grieve,
>>>>>Can please explain why we in Britain are subject to the
>>>>>notorious and distinctly un-British European Arrest Warrant –
>>>>>despite our alleged opt-out?
>>>>> Everyone subjected to a EAW has been denied the protection of
>>>>> Habeas Corpus. Many will spend months or even years in jail
>>>>> without being charged, many will be beaten or offered lower
>>>>> sentences in exchange for admissions of guilt. Where is British
>>>>> Justice in all this?
>>>>>You and your fellow politicians seem determined to renew our
>>>>>involvement in this vicious and totalitarian system. Why?
>>>>>here: 17 arrest warrants a day on EU orders – Telegraph