OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN PERIL

Please pass this on. It is important for everyone in Britain who appreciates the civil liberties afforded them under British Law to understand the powers which will be given to the EU Public Prosecutor.

The only Party opposed to this appointment and to publicly fight against the European Arrest Warrant is UKIP. We must insist on British Law for British people without interference from the EU!

EU CRIMINAL JUSTICE IS THREATENING OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES. 

THIS IS IMMINENT.

THE NEW EUROPEAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ESTABLISHED.

HE WILL BE ABLE TO USE THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT AGAINST PEOPLE IN BRITAIN, EVEN IF THE UK HAS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE EPP PROPOSAL ITSELF.

TO STOP THIS, THE GOVT MUST BE URGED NOT TO RECONFIRM ACCEPTANCE OF THE EAW.

For many years I have been struggling to bring the EU’s threat to our physical freedom (from arbitrary imprisonments and wrongful convictions) into the arena of public debate.

In September, at the request of Christopher Gill and Tim Congdon, respectively President and Chairman of the Freedom Association, I presented a submission to the House of Lords which is debating the EU’s Justice & Home Affairs Opt-Out and the proposed Opt-Ins.
This can be read on the parliament.uk website, and in a complete version on www.tfa.net/research (it is the second item down the page).
It was also copied to the Commons EU scrutiny committee, chaired by Bill Cash, and quoted in two footnotes (nrs 99 and 102) in their report.

However public debate really took off when Nigel Farage published an article highlighting this threat, which appeared in The Independent on 11/11:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/innocent-until-proven-guilty-not-under-the-eus-justice-system-8931215.html

There was a letter the next day from a Law professor at LSE criticising Nigel’s article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/letters-farage-is-not-facing-all-the-facts-8933409.html

I wrote a rebuttal of this criticism, but it was not published (A similar letter from me, criticising Dominic Grieve’s speech at the Guildhall was however published in the Telegraph on 17th October). Here is what I wrote:
_______
Sir,
In his criticism of Nigel Farage’s article about the EU policing and criminal-justice measures that Britain is being asked to adopt, Professor Chalmers mentions the supposed protections afforded by the Human Rights Act vis-à-vis a European Arrest Warrant. (Letters, 12/11/13)
The Human Rights Act transposes into UK law the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These are far inferior to the traditional protections afforded by English Common Law.
For example, under our Habeas Corpus laws, a person may not normally be detained for more than a few hours without being charged in open court. And a charge cannot be brought unless the investigators have already gathered enough evidence to show there is a prima facie case to answer.
The ECHR makes no such provision. All it can offer is article 6, entitlement “to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal“. Nowhere does it specify what is “reasonable”. For us in Britain it is a number of hours. But in many EU countries, and in the “Corpus Juris” proposed embryo EU-wide criminal code, it is six months, extensible (CJ art.20.3.g). After Andrew Symeou was extradited to Greece under an EAW he was held in a dreadful prison for 11 months before appearing in court where it became apparent that there was no sustainable or serious prosecution evidence against him.
The ECHR also makes no provision for Trial by Jury, no Right to Silence. No provision against trials in absentia, or double jeopardy, or hearsay evidence, or prejudicial media reporting before a verdict. Nothing to stop previous convictions from being read aloud and used to establish guilt. No need for judges’ impartiality to be assured by their having had experience as defenders as well as having served as prosecutors.
Torquil Dick-Erikson
Rome
________
Meanwhile, several people spotted a report on another critique of Nigel’s op-ed in the Independent, by another Law Professor, John Spencer of Cambridge University:

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Education/Universities/Cambridge-Universitys-Prof-John-Spencer-denounces-comments-by-UKIP-leader-Nigel-Farage-on-EU-justice-as-muddled-and-confused-20131210060004.htm

I first met John Spencer in 1985. He is the British co-author of the notorious Corpus Juris project, published in 1997. In 1999 I defeated him in a public debate on Corpus Juris, held in Cambridge, by 39 votes to 4. One of those who voted for my motion that “Corpus Juris is a threat to our civil liberties” was a judge.

This Cambridge News article is based on the following videoclip by Spencer (13″), published on the official Cambridge University website:
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/is-eu-criminal-law-a-threat-to-british-justice
I have just sent links to the four YouTube video clips of my debate against Spencer on Corpus Juris to this website as a “reader’s comment”. It is now up on the website – where it has been joined by a comment by Idris Francis. These are the only two readers’ comments so far, and they can be viewed alongside Professor Spencer’s criticism of Nigel.

Anyone who goes to this website can now see for themselves the 13 minute videoed attack by Spencer on Nigel, and by way of reply, the actual debate held in 1999 where Spencer defended his Corpus Juris brainchild against me, and lost.

Here are the video-clips of the debate, just in case the cam.ac.uk website should take down the links.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-HzMDO58MQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX0znWdpPjg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxloF2yxiVo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0_i6iaA6LE
[Actually they are easy to find on YouTube – just put “Torquil Dick-Erikson” into the YouTube search box and they will pop up.]

I realise I have given here a fair amount to read and to watch. I hope you will be able to  make the time to read the material and to watch the video-clips not only of Spencer’s attack but also of our debate (each clip of the latter is between 16 and 25 minutes).

This matter of Justice and Home Affairs is a crucial aspect of EU encroachment that the people of Britain are largely ignoring at our peril.

JHA means police and prisons, so whoever controls our JHA controls the State and controls each and every one of us. It is the big prize that the EU has been aiming at for 15 years now. Once the EU has acquired the power to put people into prison, it can say it really is a State in its own right.

And here is how it is going to get this power, very soon.

The government intends to go ahead and persuade Parliament to reconfirm our participation in the European Arrest Warrant legislation. Henceforth this will come under the supreme jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the enforcement powers of the Commission.

If Parliament reconfirms the EAW, then we will also find ourselves under the iron heel of the European Public Prosecutor, despite the fact that on 22nd October Parliament voted to opt out of the EPP. The EPP is in any case being established in a number of EU states as “enhanced cooperation”.

Corpus Juris will inevitably be the EPP’s rule book. Article 18.5 puts national public prosecutors under a “duty to assist the EPP”. He can therefore order a prosecutor in a participating nation to issue an EAW against anybody in Britain who will thereby be arrested, trussed up and shipped over to another State, as we have already seen happening. All three parties, LibLab & Con, decided they did not want to accept the EPP in Britain. But unless they also refuse to accept the EAW now, we will get the EPP anyway, whether we like it or not.

At that point, if the EU decides – say – to ban “xenophobic parties” and decides to classify UKIP as such, the EPP can issue an EAW against UKIP members who refuse to dissolve the party… I know that sounds outlandish and outrageous, for political liberty, the non-violent advocacy of any political idea, has always been an absolute in Britain. But not in Europe, where various parties (and indeed some religious sects) have often been and still are banned by law.

Alternatively, the powers of the EPP are to be so broad that he will not even have to give the real reasons for arresting someone. A mere suspicion of a crime will do to have a person put away for months before any public justification has to be produced. Say, fraud against EU finances – that is an offence that is easy to suspect of any MEP. And mere suspicion is enough, no evidence is required to be exhibited till a long time after arrest.

Please everyone write to their MP and local paper urging them NOT to accept a reconfirmation of the EAW, which will soon be put to Parliament.

Torquil Dick-Erikson

Advertisements