European Court of Human Rights
[This article was first published by The Freedom Association and we republish with their and the author’s kind permission]
~~~ *** ~~~
Introductory remark to this article by TFA: The following research by Torquil Dick-Erikson has been sent to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC).
~~~ *** ~~~
Here are some facts that we believe need to be brought to the attention of the ISC:
How many in government, at any level, are aware that the European Court of Human Rights declared that up to 5 years in prison awaiting, not just trial, but a prisoner’s first appearance in a public hearing in open court, is perfectly legitimate, and a “reasonable time” under the Convention’s article 6, because it believes that this preventive “detention … is intended to facilitate the preliminary investigation”? This judgement, rejecting an application from an Italian against Italy, dates from the mid-eighties, but is now necessarily a part of that Court’s jurisprudence, ie its settled doctrine, so is relevant today, and shows clearly that the Court and the Convention have no place for Habeas Corpus. See details in the second half of this article.
The power to issue Arrest Warrants, to be followed by lengthy imprisonment with no public hearing, without showing any evidence of wrong-doing, obviously confers a power of misuse and abuse on whoever holds it. It can be employed with spurious accusations against political adversaries, and in continental Europe, where this power is held by often unaccountable judiciaries, it not infrequently is so employed.
The above judgement of the ECtHR shows that a State’s being a signatory of the European Convention is no guarantee at all that it will safeguard, say, Habeas Corpus rights to a prisoner. The Convention merely says a “reasonable” time, but does not specify what is “reasonable”. The Court says up to 5 years is “reasonable
How many have noticed that the EU has nominated Ms Laura Kovesi, a member of the Romanian judiciary, to be their first European Public Prosecutor? Romania’s judiciary is the most heavily criticised in Europe for corruption and for being used as a blunt weapon to repress political opponents. A joint report by The Freedom Association and the Research Centre on post-Communist Economies gives details, drawn also from material published in the Guardian,to show that even the Rumanian showcase “Anti-corruption unit” (“DNA”), from whose ranks the new EPP is drawn, is itself riddled with corruption and political manipulation. Ms Kovesi is named on page 8 in the Report, cited above, as being the Chief Prosecutor, so at the heart of, the sham “anti-corruption unit”. Yet she has been chosen as the EU’s first, all-powerful, European Public Prosecutor.
Another case in point is that of Clara Ponsati, a Catalan Professor of Economics at St Andrews University, most unjustly pursued for political reasons by a Spanish EAW in Scotland, on an accusation of “violent rebellion”.
Not enough publicity has been obtained for the Learned Opinion, given by Jonathan Fisher QC to Christopher Gill, as to the powers that the EPP will have to issue EAWs against anybody in the UK, and that our judiciary will be powerless to resist this, as long as we are subject to the Extradition Act 2003 which enforces the EAW in the UK. It is therefore unlikely that anyone in government circles is aware of this sword of Damocles hanging over all of our – and indeed their – heads.
On receipt of an EAW issued by the EPP, or by any judicial authority in a “Category 1” country, our own judiciary is bound by the provisions of the Extradition Act 2003 and cannot ask to see, let alone assess, any evidence or lack thereof already collected against the prisoner by the issuing State. This fact is known (at least to Members of Parliament), but needs to be reviewed in connection with the above-listed facts. A threat to “human rights” is allowed as grounds to refuse an extradition, but these have to be as defined by the ECHR – which, as we have seen, is quite insufficient in terms of, say, Habeas Corpus rights.
The Extradition Act 2003 needs to be explicitly and radically amended, the repeal of the ECA72 alone will not be enough to free the UK of these entanglements.
When I first wrote this piece it was looking as if the EU and UK negotiating teams might agree a “Trade Deal”, with the UK granting a reconfirmation of the EAW slipped into the fine print as a bargaining chip.
Any kind of deal is now looking less likely. However, the dangers from the EAW and the new European Prosecutor from Rumania still remain, in that the text of the Extradition Act 2003, which is the basis of the EAW, makes no explicit reference at all to the EU. The EU member states, with whom EAWs are issued and received, are simply listed and called “Category 1 countries”. This surely means that on 31 December next, if we leave with No Deal, the ECA72 and its subsequent amendments will surely fall, but the Extradition Act 2003 will still stand.
So any “judicial authority” in any “Category 1” country (and this includes Prosecutors) will still be empowered, after Brexit, to have anybody in the UK arrested, trussed-up, and shipped over to any dungeon in Europe. Our national judges are already, and will continue to be, subjected to the peremptory orders of foreign Prosecutors, who, according to our own Supreme Court, have the status of a “judicial authority”, whereas under the British way of seeing things, they are a party to a case.
The risk does emain that an un-amended or un-repealed European Arrest Warrant will be offered up as a bargaining chip for a UK-EU trade deal. Or indeed that in any case it will remain standing if there is No Deal.
In either case it would remain a fetter on our freedom and on our sovereignty.
The Extradition Act 2003 needs to be explicitly and radically amended, the repeal of the ECA72 alone will not be enough to free the UK of these entanglements. It must be amended so that a British Court, faced with any extradition request, is empowered to demand to see and assess the evidence, if any,already collected by the requesting State, of a prima facie case to answer, and to reject the request if it is apparent that there is no such evidence, or so flimsy as to be manifestly inadequate. The differences between our Magna Carta-based system of criminal justice, and the Napoleonic-inquisitorial systems used on the continent, unstudied and unresearched by any of our own legal luminaries, are so profoiund as to show that the doctrine of “Mutual recognition and confidence” is quite unjustified,
Thanks for reprinting this article Viv, I believe it is URGENTLY necessary that it gets through to the wooden heads in Government that as Ralph Prothero points out in his comment below that there are things outside Brexit which must be attended to at least concurrently with Brexit and before then if possible.
In the same comment I would also agree with Pauline Bacter’s comment that defence must be sorted too!
This crucial article by Torquil Dick-Erikson shows how dangerous it is not to cut each & every single legal tie remaining between the UK & EU. So that Britain becomes a “third country” in Brussels-speak, like all the other countries outside the EU, whose products are perpetually on sale in our shops and showrooms.
I hope that the Bruges Group & the Campaign for an Independent Britain both publish his article, if they haven’t done so already.
Torquil Dick Erikson is undoubtedly right in what he says here.
Are we still talking about a ‘security deal’? Is Britain already signed up to one or is it part of the ‘trade deal’ we are still supposed to be ‘negotiating’?
Whatever, we certainly DON’T WANT to be part of any Security Deal with the E.U. or European Court Of Human Rights.
For the record, I have written to my MP, and Steve Baker and BoJo and Mogg expressing my extreme concern about all this , and their attitude is that they just dont care. I had a rather abusive reply from my Tory MP, no reply from Mogg or BoJo (yes I know I’m not their constituent but on something as important as this…..), and Steve Baker just fobbed me off with sound bites. After having my attention drawn to this by Torquil D E, I have also constantly been passing on warning in forums; and also on John Redwood’s blog where I was fobbed off by a commenter called “Martin from Cardiff” who mocked me saying more or less “You cannot be serious.” I have my own views on who the pro Tory commenter Martin of Cardiff may be. ….
Well said, Mary. I’ve often wondered myself. But – ”pro Tory”?
L Jones You mean what’s wrong with being pro Tory? Well nothing, if they were indeed a genuine conservative party. But they’re not. they are snakes and con artists who serve the globalist elite, but manage to fool the ordinary man into thinking they’re (somewhat) on his side. Their existence with all their smoke and mirrors, has mudddied the water, lulled voters into complacency while our destruction proceeds apace. I have been consistently scathing about them and would never (since Maggie’s time) vote for them. One of their worst crimes is indoctrination and perversion of young kids in schools under their watch.
Well said. I too have not voted Tory since the 92 Maastricht sell out. David Davies was chief whip I believe!!!!! As you say they are ‘snakes and con artists’ and well oiled ones too.
It’s the return of the ancient order, the feudal system. First the police state. The ability to arrest anyone for any reason or no reason at all swiftly followed by direct control of the police by government officials so they can ensure their re-election.
Of course they won’t tell you it’s the feudal system and titles and structures will be different though functionally the same.
That’s why they’re memory-holing everything with their ‘woke’ education.
People must not be allowed to make comparisons with the past or see the freedoms lost.
East Germany expanded amazingly after Reagan removed the wall has it not?
Merkle must be pleased. She’s come a long way.
Just think we could be part of it too! It’s not to late.
Get rid of Habeas Corpus good and proper and away we go!
Forget right and left. It’s about right and wrong.
As if things weren’t bad enough already. Our government cant even eject a few illegal immigrants because of a legal challenge by activist lawyers, we have absolutely no power to protect our borders and our government is effectively neutered, a further security treaty would finish us off as a nation completely regardless of Brexit.
This is what really worries me, never have we given any government a mandate to sign away our sovereignty, we’ve been to war for far less, this time however we have to fight without a government or a leader but fight we must.
As you rightly say we need leadership and direction. United we win, divided we fall. A charismatic, recognisable leader, already respected and effective is Nigel Farage. We should put our money and resources behind him and the BP.
Nothing Nigel or anyone can do until Johnson shows his hand over Brexit.
Enoch Powell was prescient. That’s why so much trouble was taken to denigrate him and his opinions, and to destroy his reputation.