CORPUS JURIS BY STEALTH

Green Paper on the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor for the criminal-law protection of the Community's financial interests. Combating fraud that is detrimental to Community finances is a key political priority of the Commission. The establishment of a European Public Prosecutor to protect Community finances is an important building block in the Commission's anti-fraud strategy. Today the Commission adopted, on a proposal from Michaele Schreyer, the Commissioner responsible, a Green Paper that fleshes out the proposal for establishing a European Public Prosecutor. The Green Paper discusses the legal status and organisation of the European Public Prosecutor as well as matters relating to the offences covered, procedural law and judicial review. "Fraud involving the Community budget must be pursued unremittingly and effectively throughout the EU. Together, we must close the existing loopholes in criminal prosecution. The taxpayer quite rightly expects this," stated Michaele Schreyer, before stressing: "The Commission's proposal links effective protection of Community finances to the principles of subsidiarity. It is an important building block for a European legal area." The purpose of the Green Paper is to launch a wide-ranging public debate with the Member States and all concerned, but particularly with practitioners, on the powers and modus operandi of the European Public Prosecutor. The aim is to ensure that this ambitious project becomes widely known throughout Europe and to find the best possible solutions for devising the system. (IP/01/1794 Strasbourg, Commission Press Release 9 Mar 2002)

Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom decided on Thursday to introduce the EU arrest warrant one year earlier than announced. During an informal meeting of EU justice and home affairs ministers in Spain, the six countries announced they would introduce the EU arrest warrant as of 1 January 2003. The six countries' governments are set to draw up a list of legal changes they have to apply before the end of the year, so as to allow the law on an EU arrest warrant to enter into force. According to the Spanish justice minister Angel Acebes, it is even possible that some countries out of the six apply the mandate before the end of the year. The European commissioner for justice and home affairs, Antonio Vittorino, welcomed the decision, saying this showed "discussions about a common justice zone are not just rhetoric" (Euobserver.com 14.02.2002)

The events of Sept. 11 were shamefully used as an excuse to implement a measure European bureaucrats had been seeking for years -- the pan-European arrest warrant. This measure permits a public authority in any one member-nation of the European Union to issue a warrant for the arrest of a person in any other member-nation, and have them extradited to face trial for crimes whether or not the act in question was a crime in the nation where the person was arrested. Furthermore, the extradition is automatic -- there is no chance for a hearing to determine the validity of the charge. This development is alarming for several reasons. Most particularly, it erases the critical protection of habeas corpus from British law for persons accused under this system. English, or common, law and Continental law are fundamentally different. Since medieval times, English law has required that an arrested person be taken promptly before a judge, where the authorities must make a reasonable case that the person has actually committed a crime. The onus is on the government to demonstrate there are good reasons for arresting and trying him. The accused has the right to reasonable bail, unless the government can prove that it should be denied. In contrast, in Continental, or civil law systems, a person can be held for long periods of time before charges need be filed, and the onus is on the accused to prove his innocence. The simple provisions of common law have been an effective and powerful constraint on executive, prosecutorial and police misconduct in England, and subsequently in America and the rest of the common-law world, for centuries. They still are today. In contrast, throughout that time period, civil law states in Europe and their former colonies, such as Latin America, have frequently suffered abuse of executive and police powers. The European Union is constantly manufacturing "rights" in the sense of various benefits their governments must tax and regulate their citizens to provide. These include things like the "right" to a full night's sleep, which recently seemed to threaten the abolition of overnight flights in Europe. Yet in pursuit of such "rights" they seem intent on eradicating the most effective set of real rights humankind has known. The British and Irish now face the prospect of being dragged from their own soil without a hearing to face trials without juries or presumption of innocence for violation of laws made by foreign parliaments, for acts which are not crimes in their own lands. This effectively makes the least democratic European state the legislator for all the rest. Ironically, the Europeanists deny that they seek a centralized European superstate. Yet even after 200 years of federal union, American states continue to retain the power to protect their citizens from arbitrary extradition to other states. No person can be extradited from one American state to another to stand trial for a charge that only exists in the other state. Yet Europeans are now losing this protection. (Anglosphere Beat WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 UPI)

  Umberto Bossi, the leader of the separatist Northern League, a coalition partner in the Berlusconi government, has lashed out at the prospect of having a European arrest warrant. "The very thought!" he said in Milan on 9th December. "It is impossible to hand over a citizen of Treviso … to a judicial system run by ex-communists and the secret services. Europe," he went on, "will have a judicial system only when a European constitution, approved by the people, comes into being. Mr. Berlusconi should bear this in mind when he meets the Belgian prime minister." And, in a barely disguised allusion to the Dutroux affair in Belgium – Marc Dutroux, a pornographer and child-murderer, has still not been brought to trial even though he was arrested over five years ago – Bossi referred to "the meeting to discuss a European judicial area was discussed, at which there were persons present who in a way have tried to protect paedophilia." Meanwhile, another League politician, the Justice Minister, Roberto Castelli, has presented himself as the saviour of the citizen against the overweening power of Europe by saying, "If I had not opposed the European arrest warrant, you would all be in danger of being arrested by some leftie European magistrate – and I assure you there are many of those – simply because you are here to demonstrate against illegal immigration. [Danielle Rouard, Le Monde, 10th December 2001] Italy has relented and agreed to the full EU arrest warrant - Ed

The EU Commission has adopted a Green Paper on the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor, who should help the EU to fight against fraud. The intention is to create an open debate and have the proposal adopted in 2003 in the next round of Treaty amendments. Independent judicial authority The European Public Prosecutor should be an independent judicial authority empowered to conduct investigations and prosecutions anywhere in Europe into offences against the Community's financial interests, such as fraud and corruption. He should handle prosecutions in the national courts, while trial and judgement would be in the hands of the national courts, according to the Commission Green Paper. As the Commission sees it, the European Public Prosecutor would be organised on a decentralised basis (in each Member State there would be a Deputy European Public Prosecutor). His activity should be subject to review in the national courts, which would be especially at pains to secure human rights and fundamental freedoms. He could avail himself of instruments that are currently being prepared in the context of European judicial co-operation (European arrest warrant) and would proceed on the basis of mutual recognition of all enforcement instruments (such as searches and seizures) available in the member states. (EUobserver.com 12/12/01)

VICTORY OVER TWO IMPORTANT CORPUS JURIS COMPONENTS:

A leak of government papers showed that the government was preparing a vast legal bill of 525 clauses. It will transform into authoritarian law a report from Sir Robin Auld, an Appeal Court judge, who was instructed by the Lord Chancellor to examine the future of the criminal courts, and a review of sentencing by John Halliday, a former Home Office civil servant. In the privacy of their "restricted" documents, the civil servants did not trouble themselves with the principles of justice. Auld proposed the creation of a new intermediate district court where a judge, whose appointment and chances of promotion to the higher judiciary depend on the Lord Chancellor, will replace juries answerable to no one. The judge will sit with two magistrates, but will be in charge. "Magistrates will resist change." Many of the defendants before the district judges will be the type of suspects whose cases are currently classified as "either-way". These are trials for quite serious offences, such as theft, burglary, drug use, minor frauds and sexual assaults. They may not make the national news, but carry prison sentences, and can destroy reputations and careers. "Two-thirds of jury trials disappear." The government isn't stopping there. Auld wants to ban juries from all cases that would attract a sentence of less than two years, and the government will oblige him. It will also accept his recommendations that fraud cases and nearly all trials of children aged 16 and 17 should be jury-free zones. (For good measure, prosecutions of teenagers will be held in camera.) The Bar Council said the Home Office estimate of two-thirds of jury trials disappearing is right. Approximately 50,000 cases a year are heard by juries at the Crown Court. If you add up the consequences of the measures the cabinet is discussing, you find that somewhere between 70 and 75 per cent of jury trials will be lost - that's around 35,000 cases. One of the best definitions of this country used to be that the English were innocent until found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers. Not any more. The ushering of the public from the courtroom will be accompanied by a bogus public consultation. Auld's report was released in October. The deadline for responses is 31 January 2002. Final decisions on what measures will become law will be taken by the cabinet committee "in February/March 2002", which in theory gives ministers a few weeks to take account of the public's views. The memo to cabinet says work has already begun on 400 of the 525 legislative clauses, which scarcely suggests an open mind. In April, six months before Auld reported, the Lord Chancellor's Department advertised for a head of courts reorganisation. Whitehall somehow knew that Auld would call for judges to replace juries before he had written a word. The presumption of innocence ensures that a court hears only direct evidence that a suspect has committed a crime. The list of his past convictions is hidden, so it does not prejudice the court. Meanwhile, the rules against hearsay prevent the repetition of rumours and speculation. The papers for cabinet show the government will allow a suspect's previous convictions to be broadcast to one and all. On 24 September, with talk of the war against terrorism at its height, the Prime Minister found the time to tell the Home Office that he absolutely agreed with Auld's modest proposal to admit hearsay evidence. In private, no one in Whitehall pretends that prejudicing fair trials will catch the Napoleons of crime. Nor does the Home Office believe its measures will catch the hard core of minor offenders who commit the majority of crimes. The underlying bias of the leaked documents, the Auld report and everything this government has said about juries since it was elected is a technocratic suspicion of the public. In Auld's review of the royal commissions and legal authorities that had supported trial by jury over the centuries, he quoted and then dismissed the declaration of the late law lord Lord Devlin, that the jury was the "lamp that shows that freedom lives". Auld could not bring himself to give the full passage, so here it is: "The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make parliament utterly subservient to his will, and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury. [It] is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives." Our present tyranny has a subservient parliament already. Now it's after trial by jury. (New Statesman 3/12/01)

In 1998 the monitoring system set up by the Council of Europe into compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights examined the national justice systems of all Union states. The survey concluded that some judges were open to political interference, biased in favour of the prosecution, racist and xenophobic. There was evidence pointing to the judiciary ignoring the law, bypassing justice procedures and a disinclination to acquit. The preference was to adjourn so that the prosecution could find more evidence. A combination of two factors mentioned in the report have contributed to many miscarriage of justice cases studied by Fair Trials Abroad, in particular in cases where reliance is placed exclusively on professional judges of fact in the determination of serious criminal charges. The worrying number of cases where defendants are convicted in defiance of the assumption of innocence, and with little or no evidence against them, is often due to disinclination to acquit and release the prisoner by judges who are closely linked to the prosecutor. These particular judicial vices are unlikely in procedures involving lay participation in the decision-making process (eg French assizes, British and Scandinavian jury trials, German assessors). (The Times 30/11/99) Fair Trials Abroad faces closure after its €50,000 EU grant was axed. This is one third of its annual income. FTA handles about 100 cases a year and in the last year has been at the forefront of several high-profile civil liberties cases. (European Voice 22/11/01) For example: Fair Trials Abroad will unveil a programme to protect the citizen against injustices that may arise as a result of decisions to be taken at Laeken, among them, the proposed European Arrest Warrant. (FTA 06/11/01)

If the British decide to give up sovereignty, they might try for better terms. Why not form a European Union on the basis of English Law? This would be a huge gain for all of Europe by bringing English liberties at long last to the Continent. Are the British people so smitten by Europe that they would give up their historic achievements and replace "law as shield" with "law as weapon"? (NewsMax.com 30/11/01)

The Greek Plane Spotters Affair: It is not known whether the allegations against all the prisoners amount to a breach of Greek law. It is quite clear that the allegations would be a breach of British law. If the group had succeeded in returning to their native countries they would have at present been protected against extradition by the double criminality rule, which will be removed by the new Euro-arrest warrant's terms. The history of this case so far shows clear breaches of the European Convention of Human Rights and low judicial standards. They were treated as a group without examination of the strength or weakness of the case against any individual. Provisional liberty has not been granted to anyone although it is clear that the offence is at worst trivial and technical. All the details of planes are in the public domain. (Fair Trials Abroad 18/11/01)

Typical extracts from Hansard on the debate on the Anti-Terrorism Bill: /Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham The Bill has 14 parts, and only one deals with terrorism. Most of the Bill has simply come out of the Home Office's back lobby. It has a lot of stuff that it wants to put before Parliament, and it has attached it to this Bill. Part 5 deals with incitement to religious hatred, which is a very important issue, but it has nothing to do with terrorism; part 10 on police powers, ditto; part 11 on retention of communications data, ditto; part 12 on bribery and corruption, ditto; part 13 on implementation of the European Union third pillar, ditto. All those matters are important, but they are certainly not about terrorism, and yet we are subjecting them to a very tight timetable. /Mr David Cameron Col 102, I am new to the House and today I have seen one of the worst sides of being a Member, as we are passing a 124-clause Bill in just three days at the whim of the Executive. Let me touch on some objections. We must be clear on the third pillar and clause 109: effectively, it allows Ministers to pass through the House as a statutory instrument rather than a Bill any measure agreed at the Justice and Home Affairs Council. (Including the Euro-arrest warrant-Ed) That is staggering. The Government are not saying, "Europe has agreed an important terrorist measure and we must rush it through the House and get it into British law." They are not saying, "A package of terrorism measures has been agreed so we must put it into law." They are not even saying that any European Union decision on terrorism must go through this place quickly and become law. They are saying that any, and possibly every, measure agreed under the third pillar by Europe's Justice and Home Affairs Ministers can go into law without primary legislation being passed. (House of Commons 19.11.2001. Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill)

Lord Peter Goldsmith is the Attorney General and Labour Party supporter. At present criminal charges are decided by the police when making an arrest. He is experimenting with making the Crown Prosecution Service determine the charges. This means there should be a CPS representative present in police stations at all times. He wants to change our tradition of "no arrest without charge" by introducing a delay in bringing charges with defendants who cannot safely be bailed to await a written decision from the CPS. This mimics the EU practice of arrest followed by an investigating magistrate directing police enquiries to see if there is a basis for charging the prisoner with committing an offence. (Daily Telegraph 20/11/01)

A LEADING judge launched a closely argued assault yesterday on plans for a new European arrest warrant which the Government is expected to support at an EU ministers' meeting next month. Lord Scott of Foscote suggested that people arrested under the catch-all warrant might not receive a fair trial in the country to which they were sent. This year he was appointed to chair the sub-committee scrutinising EU draft legislation, a post always held by a serving law lord. During a Lords debate on Monday night he raised a number of concerns about a "framework decision" on a Europe-wide arrest warrant, which the Government is expected to approve in two weeks' time at a meeting of justice and home affairs ministers in Brussels. The warrant will replace extradition between EU states. It covers all offences for which a person can jailed for a year in the country requesting arrest. The plans are being rushed through, alongside a separate anti-terrorism measure, in response to the events of September 11. However, Lord Scott said that the arrest warrant proposal was "only marginally concerned with terrorism" and did not require such a strict timetable. It was "much more worrying" than the revised anti-terrorism measures, he said. "I urge the Government to take great care that . . . the bandwagon that is carrying along the bulk of the counter-terrorist measures does not . . . carry with it this measure before it is ready." Lord Scott was concerned that people could be arrested and sent abroad simply to be interrogated by an examining magistrate. It would no longer be necessary for the requesting country to show that there was sufficient evidence for the suspect to answer. The plans also made "substantial inroads" into two further safeguards in existing extradition laws. The first was the so-called double criminality rule, which prevents people from being extradited on charges that are not offences in Britain. However, the framework document lists 25 broad offences to which this safeguard would not apply. They include fraud, corruption, racism and xenophobia and swindling, which are not offences as such in Britain. The other safeguard was that nobody could be extradited at present without the Home Secretary's consent. According to the framework document, that decision would be left instead to the "executing judicial authority", who it is intended should be a district judge. (Electronic Telegraph 21/11/2001)

Politicians and commentators, who advocate racist and xenophobic view points, risk being arrested and handed to another European Union member state, where laws on such matters are far stronger, under the proposal for an EU-wide arrest warrant, reports Danish newspaper Politiken. That is the result of the proposal for an EU-wide arrest warrant being discussed by justice and home affairs ministers form the 15 member states today, Friday. Racism is on the list of 29 crimes to which the new European arrest warrant should be applicable. The list also covers terror, murder, membership in a criminal organisation, human trafficking, rape and other offences. Undermines right to free expression The right to free expression in Denmark allows as an example denial of nazi concentration camps which is considered to be a criminal offence in Germany and France. "You may or not like such expressions, but in Denmark we have decided to allow such things as part of our right to free expression. If the tabled EU-proposal is decided, freedom of expression will be undermined in this area," Vagn Greve, a Professor in criminal law told the Politiken. Double incrimination Politicians and commentators do not have to express such views abroad in order to avoid getting into conflict with racism legislation in other member states, according to legal experts, writes the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Opinions printed in a foreign newspaper or on the internet can be sufficient as a way of breaching other countries racism legislation. A prosecuting office within any European Union member state can issue an arrest warrant, obligating the police in all other member states to find and arrest the suspect, under the European arrest warrant proposal (EUobserver.com 16/11/01)

The president of the EU Commission, Romano Prodi in his recent White Paper on the future governance of the EU, he makes clear that future Commission decisions will increasingly be enforced by the issuance of directives and regulations, thus avoiding what he sees as the frustrations of due legal, political and constitutional process. Evidence of this change in the EU's method of government is already apparent. Amendments to the notorious Article 280 of the consolidated text of the Amsterdam Treaty appeared in early drafts of the Nice Treaty and suddenly disappeared at the last minute. Instead, a new directive (272) will come into force on 31 December 2001 (long before the Nice Treaty would have been ratified), to give the EU powers to arrest British subjects and extradite them for trial in a foreign country under foreign law. Such draconian powers will override the British courts. They will neither hear the evidence nor make the decision to extradite. (Letter to House of Lords, Tanner Management 8/11/01)

The ministers of foreign affairs of EU countries today in Luxembourg agreed on a detailed roadmap of measures and initiatives to be taken in the framework of the anti-terrorist action plan adopted by the EU heads of state, at the European Summit on terrorism, on September 21. The ministers of justice and home affairs have to make Eurojust operational before the end of the year, to adopt the European arrest warrant, at the latest until December 6 – 7, to adopt the common definition of terrorism, to adopt urgently the decision on asset freezing, to examine the present legislation with a view to make it face "terrorist risks" and to ensure a balance between data protection and police efficiency. As for the operational measures, the ministers of justice and home affairs have to make up a common list of terrorist organisations, to send to Europol all data relevant on terrorist matters, to reinforce cooperation between chiefs of anti-terrorist units in EU countries, to make up joint investigation teams; to revise the competencies of Europol and to improve Cupertino between the secret services of EU countries. (EUobserver.com 23/10/01)

Terrorist laws in Spain : Terrorist suspects can be arrested and held for up to two years without being charged. (BBC Radio 5 Oct 4, 2001)

Roy Amlot, QC, chairman of the Bar Council, condemned the proposals proposal in last week’s report on criminal justice by Sir Robin Auld as a "fundamental undermining of the jury system" and warned the Government "not to sacrifice the jury on the altars of cost and efficiency". The public had confidence in jury trial and the Government would ignore public opinion at its peril, he said. To allow a right of appeal against "perverse" jury verdicts was "particularly unpalatable", he added. It was time, he said, for everyone to "decide on the importance of jury trial in this democracy" in the light of the proposal to remove the right to elect jury trial in all but the most serious cases. "When it comes to criminal justice in this country, we want jury-made justice, not judge-made justice, otherwise we alienate communities and risk a fundamental lack of confidence in the whole process. People trust juries. We must trust the people." Nor was it acceptable, he added, for a judge to impose on a defendant in a serious fraud a trial by himself and two lay asssessors. Mr Amlot said later that defendants had always been able to choose trial by their peers for many middle-ranking offences, including theft, burglary and some assaults. "We stand by that basic principle. We take the view that it can be just as important, and just as significant, for someone on a shoplifting charge, who may face a huge blow to his reputation . . . as it is to a burglar who might be lined up for a more serious sentence." Bruce Houlder, QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said that about two thirds of the cases now tried in the Crown Court — about 70,000 a year — would instead be heard by a judge with two magistrates, and added: "Anyone who seeks to suggest that is not a fundamental attack on the jury system itself would be misled. It is. We would be left with a rump of cases going to the Crown Court." (The Times 15/10/01)

In his recent White Paper on the future governance of the European Union, Mr Prodi makes clear that future Commission decisions will increasingly be enforced by the issuance of directives and regulations, thus avoiding what he sees as the frustrations of due legal, political and constitutional process. Evidence of this change in the EU’s method of government is already apparent. Amendments to the notorious Article 280 (renumbered 209a) of the Amsterdam Treaty appeared in early drafts of the Nice Treaty and suddenly disappeared at the last minute. These amendments, which purported to empower the EU’s corpus juris proposals in all member states, are now being introduced by the Commission by directive. Thus, a new directive will come into force on 31 December 2001 (long before the Nice Treaty would have been ratified), to give the EU powers to arrest British subjects and extradite them for trial in a foreign country under foreign law. Such draconian powers will override the British courts. They will neither hear the evidence nor make the decision to extradite. (SANITY news release to Parliament 12/10/01)

The ministers of justice and home affairs of the EU countries agreed in Brussels the principles of the functioning of Eurojust, the EU judicial co-operation network that should be functional by the beginning of 2002 and as a permanent EU institution. Eurojust will be a network of expertise offering to magistrates the possibility of co-operating, without obliging them to do so. The creation of the Eurojust is seen as an important step for the creation of a European judicial area, and is set to give a boost, together with Europol, to the anti-terrorist fight. The creation of Eurojust was agreed at the EU summit in Tammerfors, Finland in 1999 to be in action before the end of 2001. In December 2000 a provisionally Pro Eurojust was set up. The agency, provisionally based in Brussels since March, is made up of magistrates from member states who co-ordinate legal aspects of major cross-border investigations, including terrorism, cyber-crime, money laundering and environmental offences. The ministers of justice and home affairs of the EU countries also discussed on the adoption of measures necessary in order to reinforce the combat against terrorism. After the strong message and impulsion given by the 15 EU heads of state, gathered for an emergency anti-terrorist meeting last Friday in Brussels, the ministers will now seek to speed up the adoption of some internal measures important for combating terrorism and also to develop international contacts. The 15 agreed on extending the mandate of Europol in order to include new concerns raised by the terrorist attacks on the United States and notably the security of the European Summits. They also agreed on the creation of joint investigation teams and the right of asking the opening of an enquiry. The ministers also had a discussion extending Europol mandate to serious forms of international crime. They ministers of home affairs also discussed about modifying the Europol convention, to include elements of parliamentary control, transparency and efficient management. As Europol will have more and more important tasks, the ministers thought it was necessary to extend in parallel the elements of control on the institution. Moreover, they tackled the problem of security of European gatherings and also discussed about the possibility of closing the internal Schengen borders in the event of exceptional security risk. (EUobserver.com 1/10/01) 

If , say, a trader wants to bring charges against the police of corruption to the public prosecutor, they usually demand cast-iron proof, and if you cannot provide it, then *you* are prosecuted for false reporting of a crime (which is in itself an offence). (E-mail from T D Erikson 20 Jul 2001)

The ministers of justice of EU countries agreed yesterday to set penalties of eight years in prison for people found guilty of trafficking human beings or smuggling illegal immigrants. The ministers admitted the legal traditions of member states should be respected allowing the UK, Spain, Germany, France and Italy to keep tougher penalties of 10 years in prison. Denmark and Sweden will reduce the penalty to 6 years and will exclude prosecution of people convicted of smuggling people in the EU for humanitarian reasons, reports the Financial Times. The fifteen ministers also agreed on a framework for sharing out waves of refugees in the EU in times of crisis. These are the first steps for creating a common asylum and immigration policy by 2004. The European ministers of justice came to an agreement to exchange information between national investigation agencies to fight money laundering. Under the compromise, foreign investigators can get access to bank account information in countries with tough legislation on banking secrecy if they can prove that they would be allowed to gain access to this information in their own country, according to the FT. (EUobserver.com 30.05.2001)

The Commission has adopted a "draft directive" to protect European Union funds against fraud. The purpose to "align substantive criminal law in the member states, as well as criminal liability and the criminal penalties". The Commission quotes Article 280 as providing it with the community competence "to harmonise criminal offences and sanctions concerning fraud". The new law is intended to stop the yearly misuse of roughly five per cent of the EU's £62 billion budget, but it clearly has broader implications. Antonio Vitorino, the justice and home affairs commissioner, said: "This initiative is essential not only to protect EU funds but also to increase co-operation between the commission and the EU member states in fighting all forms of criminality." Mr Vitorino also proposed a five-year minimum sentence for drug traffickers. (Daily Telegraph 26/5/01)

AN attempt by the European Commission to muscle in on a new EU judicial body was condemned yesterday as a threat to English common law. The commission has proposed a seat for itself on the central steering committee of Eurojust, an embryonic co-operation unit drawing together prosecutors from the 15 member states. The idea was that each state should second a prosecutor to the unit to support national investigations and speed up the exchange of information - but not direct the operations. However, as the first outlines begin to appear, it is evident that the commission wants Eurojust to have more control, working through Interpol. Brussels has told member states: "In the commission's opinion, Eurojust should be more than a documentation and information centre. The unit should be involved in individual criminal investigations. It should be able to contribute actively to proper co-ordination of individual cases, in particular when urgent cross-border action is needed and/or when such action must be backed up legally." Daniel Hannan, a Conservative MEP and member of the European Parliament's justice and home affairs committee, said: "This is a major step towards a European criminal justice system and a threat to English common law." (Telegraph 19/3/01)

The Stockholm Summit on 23 and 24 March, is the first Summit to be organised by Sweden holding the EU Presidency. The ministers will review the state of play of European civilian crisis management, where work has progressed on a number of priority areas - police, strengthening of the rule of law, strengthening of the civilian administration and civil protection. (EUobserver.com 19/3/01)

The German Federal Minister of the Interior Otto Schily (SPD) expressed on Thursday his support for the creation of a common EU border police to check external boarders of the European Union. "In the long run it might be meaningful to structure a European border police," he told the German news Berlinonline at a meeting of European Union interior and justice Ministers in Brussels. Schily justified the idea with the perspective of the European Union enlargement: In some years all neighbours of Germany would be included into the Schengen system and no more checks carried out at the German frontiers. "Would we leave the responsibility to other states to protect the European Union external frontiers? We nevertheless also have an interest in this protection," Schily said. Exactly this argument speaks for the establishment of a common police. The Italian government has already tabled a proposal of a European Union police troop and training of border police according to common standards, Mr Schily told reporters. (EUobserver.com 16/3/01)

A NEW system of fast-track "Euro-warrants" to speed up the extradition of suspects across the European Union was proposed by the Home Office yesterday. A request from one country would lead to the immediate arrest and speedy removal of an alleged offender. The review of the law was prompted both by efforts to achieve common judicial practices in Europe. Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, yesterday said that his proposed simplifications could result in an extradition process lasting weeks rather than months or years. The fast-track would apply only for EU member states and Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, which are outside the Union but belong to the Schengen open borders network. Extradition requests currently are made from state to state. If an arrest is required of a suspect in Britain, a warrant is issued by the domestic courts. Under the new system, a common arrest warrant would be issued and the suspect immediately arrested once a court was satisfied that the procedure was in order. Police would be able to detain a suspect on the basis of an alert issued by an EU criminal database. There would then be a single court hearing and streamlined appeals system and intervention by the Home Secretary only in rare cases. At present, the Home Secretary starts the extradition process and has the final say in a suspect's removal. (Daily Telegraph 13/3/01) It means that a British subject, sitting at home in Britain, if arrested on the authority of the British authorities, will continue to enjoy all the guarantees of Habeas Corpus, - ie a public appearance in court within 24 hours, and an obligation on the prosecution to produce some evidence; but none of these if he is arrested, in his own home, in Britain, on the authority of say, the Spanish authorities, who have never heard of Habeas Corpus etc. (Eurofaq posting T D-E 15/3/01)

"Some commentators have suggested in recent days that the way to avoid a repeat of the Lord Chancellor`s predicament is to establish a Ministry of Justice in the UK, thus separating the Lord Chancellor from his judicial functions. "But this is a misguided approach. It would lead to a politicised judiciary, of the sort that exists in countries such as Belgium - a conspicuously unsuccessful model. "The EU is currently pressing for a common prosecution system. A pre-condition for this would be some degree of commonality in the administration of justice in all Member States. In Britain, the institution of the Lord Chancellor would have to be replaced by something like a Ministry of Justice. (Press release T Kirkhope MEP 21/02/01)

Abolition of the distinction between solicitors and barristers brings us into line with the EU. Judges can be drawn from outside the practice of law, e.g. universities. (I am informed that all academic lawyers are fanatical Europhiles). Judges are to be given more responsibility for administering the courts. This will include questioning witnesses. Eventually they will take over from the Crown Prosecution Service and become "investigating" judges/magistrates. (Sir Ivan Lawrence MP - Congress for Democracy 2/2/01)

 Euro M.Ps. have voted - in a non-binding resolution - for the creation of a European public prosecutor with jurisdiction over member states, and for an increase in the powers of the European Court of Justice to cover criminal matters. (Daily Telegraph 3/2/01)

Plans for a European Public Prosecutor have not disappeared at Nice, as the Government claims they have. Instead they are supporting Eurojust. While initially promising nothing more than co-operation between prosecuting authorities, Eurojust is the first step to both an EU Public Prosecutor, and Corpus Juris, the EU body of criminal law. Both Commission and Parliament support proposals for Eurojust. Both freely admit that this is a staging post to a Euro Prosecutor and common European law. (Press release F Maude 8/12/00)

The Ministry of Defence police force is to be transformed into a rapid response squad ready to intervene in strikes and protests across the country under the new Armed Forces Bill. The sweeping powers of arrest and investigation contained in the Bill have raised concerns about the creation of a national force of paramilitary riot police. Defence Minister John Spellar has informed senior MoD police officers that he supports moves to give them similar powers to other police officers. But campaigners are worried that police officers working for the military are not subject to the same controls as local forces. The MoD police force is the tenth largest in the country with 3,700 officers. They are not soldiers, but are employed by the MoD rather than the Home Office and answerable to a special MoD committee rather than the local police authority.( Sunday February 4, 2001 The Observer). This last means controlled by the central government. Since Blair can sack the Defence Secretary practically when he likes, using MilPol means they are all ultimately controlled by him. Unlike our civilian constabularies who emphatically do not take orders from the Home Secretary, but each of the 43 local chief constables is independent. (Eurofaq posting T D-E 5/2/01) The controversial clauses relating to extending the powers of MoD police were removed from the Armed Forces Bill in the House of Lords today. This means that the provisions relating to military discipline will succeed and the MoD will have to return to parliament with new proposals for the MDP. (Press Release by : Mr Robert Key MP, 10 May 2001)

 Additional Commission contribution to the Intergovernmental Conference on institutional reforms The criminal protection of the Community's financial interests: a European Prosecutor. In its opinion of 26 January 2000 "Adapting the institutions to make a success of enlargement",(1) the Commission suggests in connection with the protection of the Community's financial interests that a legal basis be created in the Treaty for setting up a system of rules relating to offences and the penalties that they incur, to the requisite procedural provisions for the prosecution of these offences and to the powers and tasks of a European Public Prosecutor responsible for detecting fraud offences throughout European territory and for prosecutions in the national courts. In the framework of its new anti-fraud strategy, the Commission has confirmed its wish to strengthen the protection of the Community's financial interests in this respect. In the absence of a specific Community institutional structure the existing mechanisms, however legitimate and irreplaceable they may be, amount to obstacles to prosecution by the police and the courts and advantages for the criminal. Given the design of the Treaty, therefore, the Commission recommends that in order to respond to the current situation the primary legislation should be amplified to allow the creation of an office of European Public Prosecutor, its organisation and operation being governed by secondary legislation. This amendment would be confined to protection of the Community's financial interests. The Commission proposal to the Intergovernmental Conference is based on detailed preparatory work. For nearly ten years now, at the request of the European Parliament and the Commission, a group of experts in criminal law from all the Member States has been working on the criminal protection of the Community's financial interests. Their work produced the proposal for a set of rules for the criminal protection of the Community's financial interests, the well-known Corpus Juris. It recommends the creation of a unified Community law-enforcement area as regards the preparatory stages of court proceedings precisely by the harmonious insertion in the national systems of a European Public Prosecutor, excluding any communitarisation of the administration of criminal justice. The Commission proposes that the European Public Prosecutor be appointed by the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission with the assent of the European Parliament. (Extracts from a Communication from The Commission of The European Communities Brussels, 29 September 2000)

Article 280A of the Treaty of Nice will introduce a European Public Prosecutor, whose writ is clearly to run throughout the EU, including Britain. His rules and powers ("the general conditions governing the performance of [his] functions") shall be laid down by the Council, acting under majority voting (what the Commission document coyly calls "secondary legislation"). Britain will thus at that stage no longer be able to veto the introduction of Corpus Juris, which does away with both jury trial and Habeas Corpus, and was firmly rejected both by the government and by the Lords Select Committee, but will, in effect, in brazen rejection of democratic process, be enacted by the EU without popular mandate. The terms ("general conditions..") are sufficiently broad and loose to allow them also to decide to introduce Europol police units to "assist" the Prosecutor in the performance of his duties, and if it is thought that these need to be armed and deployed in vast numbers in the paramilitary style typical of continental police forces (e.g. for crowd control) that too will doubtless be sanctioned. Remember that Europol is being trained and equipped under conditions of total secrecy, even from MEPs. No British veto will be available to stop such action either. (Eurofaq posting 5/12/00) http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2000/com2000_0608en01.pdf

More than 1,000 magistrates have resigned from the bench in protest at human rights legislation which they say makes it impossible to do their jobs'. 'In the first nine months of the year, 1,018 magistrates left their posts rather than comply with the Human Rights Act...' 'The figure far surpasses the total number of resignations for _each of the past four years_'. '...new procedures which increase the length of each trial by a third...' 'The scale of resignations means that some benchces do not have enougb staff to cope with their workload...' 'The Act is also increasing the length of basic trials. Shoplifting hearings which used to take 2.5 hours now last all day. This is because the new procedures explain to defendants exactyl what is going on at all stages of the trial'. 'The chairman of the bench must also fill in a long form giving details of each case...he or she must outline the nature of the evidence, even if it was excluded from the trial'. (Sunday Telegraph 26/11/00)

The new UK Terrorism Act implemented on Monday February 19, 2001 includes a "special power" to search without a warrant, where a suspect must then give an explanation for anything found, another reversal of the burden of proof. (Eurofaq posting 25/2/01)

The draft Hunting Bill and the Scottish private member's Bill both reverse the burden of proof on the accused, requiring them to prove that they were not engaged in hunting, rather than for the police to prove that they were. (Daily Telegraph 27/11/00)

MEPs are voting for a European Police College tasked with "developing a European approach in the field ofcrime-fighting, border surveillance, protecting internal security and maintaining law and order". They will also be voting for a judicial co-operation unit, Eurojust, "composed of prosecutors, or magistrates, to reinforce the fight against serious organised crime", and separately for a set of measures to create a "genuine European Area of Justice" that will lead to "the emergence of a European criminal law". In other words, a typical week in Strasbourg. Europol, the EU's emergent FBI, is being given powers to investigate money-laundering stemming from all forms of crime. This sounds routine. It is not. It provides the EU with the equivalent of the US federal mail fraud clause, the instrument used by Washington to assert federal jurisdiction over state crimes. Once the Europol Convention comes into full force, Europol officers will be able to initiate probes and take part in field operations against suspected criminals in Kent, or indeed against xenophobes in Kent, since the Europol mandate covers "xenophobia". Is Euro-sceptic dissent xenophobic? (Daily Telegraph Wednesday 15th November 2000)

A senior European judge has claimed that the planned European charter of rights will affect domestic courts, despite British government assertions to the contrary. Ministers have stressed that the charter will be "declamatory" - not legally binding. But Christos Rozakis, vice-president of the European Court of Human Rights, claimed at a recent seminar of senior lawyers: "The fact is, whether the charter is declamatory or not, it will be a source of inspiration and reference, both in domestic courts and the European Court of Justice." (Financial Times Monday 13th November 2000)

TONY Blair is planning reform of the police so comprehensive that it is being kept secret from officers until after the election, according to a leaked Downing Street memorandum. The Prime Minister and Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, recognise that their plans are so inflammatory they risk "alienating the police at a crucial time". The document, disclosed to The Sunday Telegraph, reveals that Mr Blair and Mr Straw decided to keep their reforms under wraps at a Downing Street meeting in June. They fear that a battle with the police over cost-cutting measures could damage their re-election chances. Home Office officials believe that the "new agenda for reform" will include plans for a national police force, raising the retirement age and scrapping overtime pay. (Sunday Telegraph London 22/10/2000) One of the bulwarks against a police state is the placing of policing outside central government control, ie with local authorities - Ed

In May of 1999 article 20g) of Corpus Juris stated, "To make requests for a person's remand in custody or remand on bail subject to conditions, for a period of up to 6 months, renewable for 3 months. It has now been changed to read, "to make requests for a person's remand in custody or judicial control." We have always accepted that the 6 months followed by the 3 really meant "as long as they liked without charging" and it now seems that has been confirmed in the wording of the new document. You can check the text of the Corpus Juris on: www.law.uu.nl/wiarda/corpus/index1.htm (Eurofaq posting H R 22/10/00)

In the September issue of the Magistrates' Journal Lord Irvine wrote of Corpus Juris: "I should also make clear that the Corpus Juris recommendations have not been formally presented to any meeting of the Council of the European Union. Many of the recommendations, if adopted, would conflict with the legal traditions of many member states, including the United Kingdom; however as matters stand they do not even have the status of a formal proposal." As Lord Irvine must now know, as a result of the new amendment to the draft Treaty, article 280a, that formal proposal is now in place, and is due to be signed in December in Nice. The clear intention and effect of this crucial amendment is to seek to legitimise the EUs attempts to side-step the protection of national systems of criminal justice, to introduce the European Public Prosecutor, to allow the European Council subsequently to draw up the rules under which he may operate, deciding this by the procedure laid down by article 251 - and that means majority voting. So once this (new) article 280a is signed, sealed and ratified in the new Treaty, the EU Council of Ministers will be able to adopt any rules they like for the new EPP. (SANITY ALERT 11/10/00)

As a further step towards Corpus Juris, stipendary magistrates are now called District Judges, so preparing the way for the eventual line of control from the European Public Prosecutor and his professional judges in Brussels to courts in the UK, as Corpus Juris is introduced. (SANITY ALERT 11/10/00) http://www.SilentMajority.co.uk/EUroRealist/TreasonAct1795

The commissar in charge of preparing the Nice summit has presented a policy paper suggesting the creation of a European public prosecutor. This is the core proposal of a famous policy paper, entitled Corpus Juris, published in 1997 and publicised by The European Journal at the time. The British government has vehemently denied that the proposals of Corpus Juris would be implemented but, as usual, these assurances have been untrue. It is, moreover, clear that the intention goes far beyond the stated aim of "protecting the European Union’s financial interests". The aim instead is to create "a unified Community law-enforcement area", i.e. to eradicate the very notion of a national jurisdiction with police forces and judicial authorities responsible for prosecuting crime on their territory. It is also clear that the Prosecutor’s ambit will go far beyond the fight against fraud. The paper itself even cites the side-stepping of the ban on British beef as an example of the kind of thing which the European Prosecutor will be responsible for investigating. The suggestion that the EU needs a supranational prosecutor to fight against fraud is in any case a little rich since, if the main anti-corruption whistle-blower, Paul van Buitenen, is to be believed, the EU’s own anti-corruption office, OLAF, is itself responsible for foot-dragging into corruption investigations. The full text of Mr. Barnier’s paper can be consulted at: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2000/com2000_0608en01.pdf. (European Foundation briefing 5/10/00)

JUDGES may have to retire with jurors to see how they reach their verdicts to comply with the forthcoming Human Rights Act, expert discussion has suggested. [That way British courts will be like the French and the Italian ones ] The judge will be able to give his "summing-up" in secret. At present an unbalanced summing-up by the judge can be grounds for quashing a conviction on grounds of "undue influence by the judge on the jury". The change is one of a package of reforms being debated as part of a fundamental review of the criminal justice system. Lord Justice Auld, who is conducting a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system, has, in his second progress report, suggested that juries might benefit from structured lists of questions, which would have to be agreed by counsel before trial, to help them to meet any requirement to give reasoned decisions under the act. (The Times August 26 2000)

FRENCH, German or even Greek nationals will be allowed to patrol the streets as British policemen under Government plans to recruit officers from the European Union. In an attempt to solve the recruitment crisis, the Home Office is proposing changes in the law to allow European Union nationals to serve in British forces without becoming United Kingdom subjects. A consultation document containing the proposal has been sent by the Home Office to the Association of Police Authorities. The police are currently exempt from European Union legislation which gives nationals of one EU country the right to apply for jobs in another. Ministers are expected to approve the change this autumn. (Sunday Telegraph 20 August 2000) This indeed looks like another of Straw's "softening-up" moves, to prepare us psychologically for a "multinational", "European" police force. "Why stop at Europeans?" - because the new nation to be built is to be European only. An issue to be addressed is that of the Oath. Our policemen have to swear an Oath to serve the Queen? You cannot do that if you are also - say - a loyal French citizen. (Eurofaq posting T DE 22 Aug 2000)

VICTIMS of crimes will be allowed to help prosecute their assailants under proposals being studied by ministers, Victims may be permitted to instruct the prosecution counsel to ask the questions on their behalf and to sit near them in court. They may be given the opportunity to rebut allegations made about them before a defendant is sentenced. "Until now, the prosecutor in court has always represented the state rather than the victim of the crime. But that could all now change, whereby the prosecutor is, in effect, acting on behalf of the victim," said a senior Home Office aide. "It's a radical departure from the past, but Number 10 is hugely in favour of this as a way of re-writing the agenda on criminal justice." An additional incentive is an agreement among EU countries to safeguard basic common rights for all victims in member states. These would include rights to compensation and legal advice, and a pan-EU helpline. Once formally adopted a victim's charter will be introduced in every country. (Sunday Telegraph London 30/7/2000)

The Bill to stop football hooligans going abroad on the grounds that they MIGHT commit an offence when they get there is covered by the clause in corpus juris which allows the judicial process to start on suspicion of a future offence. Yet again the British government is using a Bill officially intended for one purpose to drop into step with one of the components of CJ. (Eurofaq posting, Ashley Mote 8/7/00)

Given the recent admission by the Foreign Secretary that the British government will not oppose QMV on matters of justice and home affairs, (it was not included in his list of areas where the British government would object) how does the British government intend to prevent the imposition of corpus juris on the British people against the combined wishes of other member states?' (7/7/00 letter from Christopher Gill MP to Charles Clarke, secretary of state at the Home Office)

Speaking before the European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee, the British Minister of State for Home Affairs, Kate Hoey, reiterated the UK's desire to take advantage of the opportunity offered by Article 4 of the Schengen Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam and to take on board the entire Schengen acquis, with the exception of the abolition of border controls. Emphasizing the insular nature of her country, Mrs. Hoey said that maintaining border checks is vital to the fight against organised crime. She also appealed for closer judicial cooperation, stressing the need to simplify procedures for the exchange of information between judges and to make rulings enforceable throughout the EU, no matter the Member State in which the sentence was handed down. The UK nonetheless maintains that criminal law must remain the province of the Member States; she thus expressed British opposition to the Corpus Juris and any attempt to harmonize this law. (22/04/1999 Agence Europe) British citizens are apparently to be 'educated' that continental judicial procedures are the equal of our own. Jack Straw envisages abolishing appeals against extradition because trials in other states will be regarded as no different from those in our own. What this means is harmonization by stealth. But there would be no need for a Corpus Juris first, nor a European public prosecutor. Straw merely needs to declare a "common recognition" of judicial systems and the validity of continental arrest warrants in UK. How will he do this? Through the "framework decision" procedures of the Amsterdam Treaty. These decisions are taken behind closed doors and not specifically trailed in advance. (Eurofaq posting 1/5/00)

The report on the review of the Criminal Justice System in N. Ireland by (Commissioner) Chris Patten included: The removal of all Crown symbols from courtrooms. The scrapping of the judges oath of allegiance to the Queen. The removal of "God Save the Queen" as a statement before the start of court sessions. The setting up of an independent Public Prosecution Service. Justice matters to be devolved to the Assembly when it is recalled. - A precedent for Scotland, Wales and the Regions of England? Brussels is watching with interest! (Eurofaq posting Paul Knocker 3/4/00)

The difference between the British and the European legal system is that in Britain everything that is not forbidden in law is permitted whereas in Europe everything that is not permitted by law is forbidden. (Journal 20/7/94). The Belgian Minister of justice, commenting on Pinochet's departure, said, "We all know that British justice is a relic from the Middle Ages". (BBC TV News 4/3/00)

Napoleon took the system of the Holy Inquisition and systematised it; this is what the EU wishes us to adopt under Corpus Juris. His system is used, with variations, in every country on the continent today. For example, under the French legal system their are based on obtaining confessions, not on evidence proving guilt. The investigating magistrates are the same in number as there were in 1857. Consequently they are immensely overworked. They can be engaged in 250 cases at a time. The police are not allowed to investigate crimes except under the instruction of the magistrate. Consequently they ignore lots of evidence; they do not examine the scene of the crime in the same detail, as do our detectives. This is because the French do not believe in the separation of powers and intend the state to keep control of the legal process. (BBC R 4 Law in Action 27/1/00)

Corpus Juris is a project by the EU Commission (XX DG) to set up a European Public Prosecutor with over- riding jurisdiction based on the, to the UK, alien continental inquisitorial system (the Napoleonic inquisition) of criminal justice, which will entail, explicitly, the devastation of our civil liberties including Habeas Corpus and Trial by Jury. This is to be limited, in the first phase, to crimes of fraud against the financial interests of the EU, but later the explicit intention is to extend it to all forms of criminal activity. Frau Theato chaired an inter-parliamentary conference in Brussels 9th/10th November 1998 to introduce Corpus Juris She said "The limitation provided for in the last sentence, paragraph 4 of the Article 280 'These measures shall not concern the application of national criminal law, or the national administration of justice', covers only the law currently in force in the member states, which may not be repealed or amended by Community law. It does not however prevent the Community from introducing supplementary legislation to fill gaps in their national legislation in accordance with the subsidiarity principle. (Debate on Corpus Juris held at Churchill College 15th Feb 1999 between Torquil Dick-Erikson and Prof. John Spencer) Corpus Juris is a prototype criminal code that explicitly does away with Trial by Jury. The declared intention (N.B. not declared in the Corpus Juris, but announced by the President of the EU Parliament) is to extend this system to eventually cover all fields of criminal activity. British citizens in Britain will be liable to arrest (and deportation) with no Habeas Corpus (i.e. no obligation to show that the prosecution have bothered to collect any evidence against the prisoner at all) nor any safeguard of extradition proceedings, and to be tried and convicted in Britain, as well as elsewhere, by courts that explicitly exclude "simple jurors or lay magistrates" (Art 26(1) of Corpus Juris). The only limitation on the European Public Prosecutor's power to arrest and hold somebody indefinitely is that he has to have the authorisation of the so-called "judge of freedoms", whose duties do not include any scrutiny of prima facie evidence, to do so, at the start, then after six months, and then every three months after that. The authorisation decision is not taken in or at the end of a public hearing, with a debate between prosecutor and defender, but (as in Italy today) in the privacy of the "judge of freedom's office"; The judge of freedom's duties do not include any scrutiny of the grounds for ordering the arrest - there is a mention of the charge, but no evidence need be produced at all. The European Public Prosecutor can appeal against an acquittal. (Torquil Dick-Erikson, Rome 08/02/98, information on Corpus Juris from articles by T.D-E in the European Journal:). No longer will a suspect, once acquitted, be free from retrial on the same charge (FFP/Eurofacts 20/11/98).

Corpus Juris will be brought into force by article 209a of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which does away with unanimous voting, i.e. the national veto, for "measures against fraud" which is of course what Corpus Juris ostensibly is. The "safeguard" in 209a that says "these measures shall not affect the national system of criminal justice" will be over-ridden because they'll say "But this doesn't affect national criminal justice, it simply introduces a European level". We do not have a veto within the ECJ, who will have jurisdiction to decide in case of a dispute, so there will be no veto, although HMG still claims there would be. (Mr T Dick-Erikson 22/6/98)

There was an inter-Parliamentary meeting in Strasbourg on November 8th and 9th 1998 and the Corpus Juris project was put forward for informal consideration. 14 Member States expressed general agreement with the idea. Britain, represented by Lord Goodhart and Mr Humphrey Malins, did not. 14 States said it was fine. 14 to 1 is a Qualified Majority. And article 209a gives the EU the right to introduce "measures against fraud" by QMV. Details of this conference can be obtained from the Law Society's office in Brussels. (Eurofaq message 21/11/98)

The European Parliament emphatically backed plans for the so-called Corpus Juris, which envisages a gradual harmonisation of criminal law throughout the European Union. Voting to adopt a recommendation from the Parliament's Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs committee was 399 to 48, with 35 abstentions. Virtually all Labour and Conservative MEPs voted for the measure. Despite being dismissed as a "scare story" the vote demonstrates a clear momentum in Europe for a harmonised judicial system as part of a general drive towards wider political unification. The motion proposed that EU law should be harmonised for a range of serious offences, from sexual exploitation of children to drug and arms trafficking, terrorism and money laundering, gun-running, Mafia and "religious sects". This will mean the adoption of the European inquisitorial model rather than the trial by jury system that applies in Britain and Ireland. (Daily Telegraph 14 April 1999)

Corpus Juris is "... designed to ensure, in a largely unified European legal area, a fairer, simpler and more efficient system of repression." This is a direct translation from the French "une repression plus juste, plus simple, et plus efficace". A copy of the book of Corpus Juris, is obtainable free of charge by faxing 003 22 29 66044, The Office of Francesco de Angelis, The European Commission, requesting a copy and quoting ISBN 2-7178-3344-7.

THE police in Britain would be expected to enforce the decisions of German and French courts under proposals for a harmonisation of European judicial systems. The plan, drafted by Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, would extend the powers of courts in other European Union states to arrest people, seize property, search premises or undertake surveillance operations in Britain. It would also remove the right to appeal against extradition. The Government's harmonisation plan would also mean that bailiffs acting for foreign courts could seize possessions and property in Britain. And British police could be called upon to enforce the penalties of a foreign court imposed on a Briton who had returned home - even if the offence was not a crime in Britain. (S Telegraph 18 April 1999)

One change (re: Corpus Juris) has already come into effect via the Extradition Act of 1989. An extradition warrant issued in another EU country on someone in Britain no longer has to provide any prima facie evidence that there is a case to answer - only that the warrant is 'lawful'. At least one person has already been extradited in this way. (Eurofaq posting William Palfreman 18 May 1999) - Britain is to propose abolishing extradition within the European Union, allowing courts in individual countries to issue warrants enforceable across Europe, the Observer reported Sunday. If such a system had been in place a year ago, it would have prevented the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet fighting extradition from Britain to Spain. He was arrested in London last October, but is expected to appeal a latest court ruling against him on 35 extradition charges of torture during the last 14 months of his military rule. Under the "eurowarrant" system, he would have been delivered to Spain for trial immediately after his arrest without the need for the British courts to become involved. The Observer said the proposal, which it called the first significant move toward a unified justice system (LONDON, Oct 10 1999 AFP)

Magistrate Ronald Bartle made clear that he only had to decide whether the alleged crimes for which General Pinochet faces extradition are crimes for which he can be lawfully extradited. He did not have to consider the merits and strength of the case against the General nor any defence he may have. Spain's extradition request is being made under the European Convention on Extradition which was aimed at simplifying and speeding up the process and at stopping fugitives from justice from using legal technicalities to delay the process. Under the Convention the state requesting extradition has to show that the person arrested is the person whose extradition is sought and that the alleged crime would be a crime punishable on conviction in Britain with 12 months jail, or more. (Daily Telegraph 9/10/99)

THE European Union must become a single legal area with its own public prosecutor to deal with "EU offences" if it is succeed in combating multi-billion-pound fraud, according to a report by independent experts. The controversial recommendation, which would mean a massive extension of EU power into the area of criminal law, was made by the same team of "wise men" whose first report in March led to the mass resignation of the entire European Commission. In a follow-up study published in Brussels, the "wise men" draw on ideas put forward in Corpus Juris, a plan for the gradual harmonisation of all criminal law in the EU. The "wise men" - a group of former judges and auditors appointed by the European Parliament to investigate EU fraud - make it clear that the European public prosecutor would be concerned only with investigations and prosecutions "concerning the protection of the European Communities' financial interests." Such cases would involve farmers who fiddled crop subsidies, fishermen who claimed grants for boats that had sunk or EU officials who misappropriated funds. It says the EU should, within a year, appoint the public prosecutor to investigate cases involving the community's own staff. The next stage would be to set up a network of Prosecution Offices for European Offences in each member country. These would then be transformed into "an indivisible and independent European Prosecutions Office". (Daily Telegraph, 11th September 1999)

EU leaders made major progress towards harmonising the policies in the justice and home affairs field at a special two-day summit in the Finnish industrial city of Tampere. They agreed to work towards establishing a European asylum system by 2004. They adopted a package of measures which will significantly boost the powers of the Union's crime-busting body Europol. The proposals include the setting up joint investigative teams to combat terrorism and drug trafficking; the establishment of a crime-busting task force of senior police officers; and founding a European police College. They stopped short of endorsing proposals to set up the European Public Prosecutor's office, but they did call for the creation of a new body of national prosecutors, magistrates and senior police officers to co-ordinate work on cross-border criminal investigations. (European Voice 21/10/99)

TONY Blair is to approve plans today for a European Union police force to be deployed in trouble spots around the world by 2003. The EU's 15 governments have agreed to create a rapid reaction unit of 1,000 police officers, to be ready for duty Within 30 days. There are no plans to use the gendarmerie for law enforcement or crowd control within the EU. The move towards an EU police force follows the Government's decision in May to join the EU's Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance, which allows EU member states to request e-mail, fax and telephone records of suspected criminals in Britain, in some cases without a specific court order, and permits EU-wide eavesdropping. (Daily Telegraph, June 19, 2000)

The European Parliament proposes the creation of a European Public Prosecutor's office as an independent entity in the Court of Justice responsible for the protection of the Union's interests against fraud throughout Community territory. (Committee on Constitutional Affairs - 10 February proposals for the Intergovernmental Conference)

EU leaders showed a worrying disregard for victims of wrongful arrest at the summit in Tampere, according to the chairman of the European Parliament civil liberties committee. While governments demonstrated their willingness to beef up the Union's powers to track down and prosecute suspected criminals, they did little to protect the rights of innocent people who find themselves in jail. They failed to address adequately the issue of ensuring that everyone suspected of a crime has the right to a proper defence. (European Voice 21/11/99)

"In Corpus Juris in the reference to 'Fraud' there is included the offence of 'committing fraud even if there was no intention to commit fraud' this alone will be enough to show how unintelligible 'Justice' is becoming. Suddenly it becomes possible to be charged with a nebulous crime - if one receives £5.00 over payment from a State body and you then spend it, because you thought it was yours, you have committed fraud." (Eurofaq posting 19/9/99)

Ministers are meeting in Turku, Finland, on 16-17 September 1999, to prepare for a summit devoted to justice and home affairs next month. This special European Council in Tampere (15-16 October) will have three main themes: developing a common EU asylum and immigration policy; tackling cross-border crime; and establishing a European judicial area. The Amsterdam Treaty, which entered into force on 1 May 1999, includes the objective of the EU developing and maintaining an area of freedom, security and justice. (CEC 16/9/99) Far from being, as we are told, an academic exercise and a scare story, Corpus Juris is now a real possibility - Ed. Tony Blair signed up to a European commitment to merge national asylum policies, in the first moves towards and EU legal superstate. Among the proposals to be taken forward are a mutual recognition of judicial decisions throughout the EU, a single asylum and immigration system, more powers for Europol and moves towards a fast-track extradition mechanism. (Sunday Telegraph 17/10/99)

Ministers met in Brussels on 4th October to put the finishing touches to a five-year programme to create a European Area of Justice. The programme envisages that court rulings in one Member State will be recognised throughout the EU and that suspected criminals will be repatriated without the need for court proceedings. {Times 4/10/99}

Mrs Theato, Chairperson at the Brussels Inter-Parliamentary Conference earlier this month, convened to consider Corpus Juris, said, in her concluding remarks, that the Commission must use the new Article 280 (the one modified by 209a, which takes away the national veto for "measures against fraud") to bring forward Directives...and that "Corpus Juris was on the right lines, and the creation of the European Public Prosecutor (CJ's central proposal) as UNAVOIDABLE." Mr Santer also "drew attention to the powers that the new Article 280 would give to take measures combating fraud...." (Eurofaq posting Torquil Dick-Erikson 1/12/98)

"Regarding approximation or harmonisation of the criminal law, a Title VI instrument is the only one that could be used to tackle counterfeiting of the euro, as this issue falls squarely within the remit of the Third Pillar. In the paper, the Commission states that 'legislative action by the Commission on judicial co-operation on the basis of the Third Pillar will require the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which gives the Commission the right of initiative.' The paper has been discussed in the relevant EU working group and Member States have already completed a questionnaire concerning the measures currently available, in each Member State, to tackle counterfeiting of the euro. This will enable the working group to identify whether there are any legislative gaps which need to be filled by a Title VI instrument". This is another route for the imposition of Corpus Juris - Ed (Kate Hoey 's letter of 2 February 1999 to the Home Office Select Committee on Counterfeiting the Euro).

Blair's government has read Corpus Juris and his Home Office Minister Kate Hoey has stated that they think it threatens our "national sovereignty" and our "human rights" and says if it were ever presented we shall veto it. When our EU partners make it absolutely clear to them that we shall not have a veto available, then Blair & Co will have to choose: either accomplish a complete U-turn and lead us out of the EU, or help the EU to trash British liberties. (Eurofaq posting Torquil Dick-Erikson 25/12/98)

PROPOSALS that could have led to a Europe-wide criminal justice system have been rejected by the Government. Ministers have endorsed a House of Lords report attacking the plans - initially to tackle fraud but with implications for other crimes. The report, from a committee chaired by Lord Hope of Craighead, says: "There are too many conflicts with our system of criminal justice, and the concept of a single legal area cannot be justified in the present climate of public opinion." Instead, resources would be better directed towards improving mutual legal help and practical co-operation in criminal matters across Europe. Kate Hoey , the Home Office Minister, said that a Europe-wide justice system was neither realistic nor practical. (Times 28/5/99)

Judge-only trials similar to those in the courts in Northern Ireland should be introduced when criminals interfere with juries, says the head of the newly created National Crime Squad. (Daily Telegraph 16 March 1998)

The Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary plan a radical review of the criminal justice system. The most contentious element of the review is likely to be an assessment of how far our magistrates' courts should be professionalised. This may lead to a move away from the centuries-old tradition of justice being delivered by lay magistrates; the 30,000 volunteers who deal with more than 97% of all cases that appear in court. (There are 100 professional stipendary magistrates). "We live in the only country in the world where you can be sent to prison for up to a year by a neighbour with little legal training or expertise and where there is basically no chance of appeal," said a government member. (FT 6/11/99) - 1) Lay Magistrates cannot hand down more than a 6 months sentence. 2) If a "neighbour" were on the bench, who knew the defendant personally, s/he would have to abstain. 3) It is false to say "a" neighbour, as if one lay magistrate alone can sit in judgement. There have to be at least three sitting on the bench advised by a qualified solicitor, the Clerk of the Court. 4) Lack of legal training is not synonymous with lack of expertise in giving justice. JPs now get a very thorough training before they are allowed on the bench. 5) Of course you can appeal against a magistrates' sentence. This anonymous "government member" is simply not telling the truth. But his remarks are carefully aimed at undermining our ancient legal rights and preparing us for the napoleonic system, or Corpus Juris.- Comment TD-Erikson

There are moves afoot to dispense with the lay magistrates altogether and to re-name magistrates "District Judges". Many rural Magistrates Courts are to be closed as they will not have the necessary requirements, e.g. secure docks, etc as required by the Human Rights Act. (letter Daily Telegraph, 16/9/00).

HM Customs & Excise have taken to enforcing international laws, for example the Matrix Churchill and Arms-to-Sierra Leone affairs. They will soon be the EU's principal tax gatherer when increased powers over VAT are granted to the Commission. Under an EU-wide system of VAT Customs & Excise will outplay Inland Revenue by a wide margin. With control over exports and imports, and enforcing single market legislation, etc. it would be a short step for them to be in a position to help out the European Public Prosecutor when taking action against individuals who have offended the EC and its institutions. (E-mail C Arkell 15/5/98)

EUROPEAN leaders have backed radical plans to create a new office of Euro-prosecutors as part of a raft of proposals to step up the fight against cross-border crime. The "Eurojust" unit of prosecutors and magistrates would initiate and direct investigations within national borders and co-ordinate operations across the EU. EU chiefs, attending the first summit on justice and home affairs issues in Finland, hailed the move yesterday as a vital step in the fight against money launderers, drugs traffickers and organised crime syndicates, but critics fear that the unit will become an embryonic public prosecutors' office that, ultimately, could run a single legal system - known as corpus juris - for the whole of Europe. The move was just one part of a series of proposals designed to boost judicial co-operation in Europe, which supporters see as the next stage of EU integration. The heads of state and government supported plans for a new task force of senior European policemen - to be trained at a new Euro-police college - who will work together against cross-border crime. They also agreed a widening of Europol's remit to concentrate on money laundering. Britain won strong support for its plan for "mutual recognition" between European legal systems, so that each country accepted court rulings from other member states. This would make it easier for British police to have criminals' assets seized abroad or their premises searched. It could ultimately involve the abolition of extradition in favour of a new system of Euro-arrest warrants.(The Times October 16 1999) Recognition of judicial decisions means that there would be no facility for a writ of Habeas Corpus to be issued, to secure the release of the accused if the arrest warrant was inadequate or the accused continued to be held without established good cause. Now an Italian court (where there is no legal aid) can try a Briton, in absentia, and our police will recognise a guilty verdict and deport the individual to jail in Italy.- Ed

France has been shamed into promising reform of its prison system after a doctor exposed brutal and inhumane conditions in the 19^th Century La Sante jail in Paris where she worked for eight years. Rat-infested cells, mattresses full of lice and cockroaches, corrupt guards, who deal in drugs and rape prisoners, and self-mutilation by inmates forced into slavery, are some of the horrors exposed by Dr. Veronique Vasseur. Half of France’s prisoners are awaiting trial. (Sunday Telegraph 30/1/00). The Justice Minister, Elizabeth Guigou is considering setting up a prisons inspectorate. (D Telegraph 18/2/00)

The high point of the Finnish presidency of the EU is to be a special summit in Tampere in October on law 'n order across Europe, which Brussels grandly says will establish a common area "of freedom, security and justice". There are more than 1,400 British citizens in prison in other EU states, half of them on remand and waiting trial. You might expect the Tampere summit to address the need of EU citizens enjoying their right of free movement to be assured of basic legal protections throughout Europe. They should have a swift and fair trial, early access to local legal counsel and to interpreters, and the same kind of rights to bail that they would have at home. Fat chance. There are so far no such concerns about civil liberties on the Tampere agenda, which is all about speeding up extradition, issuing EU-wide arrest warrants, common rules on bankruptcy and on immigration and asylum. Not that we really know, because these matters are dealt with in unusual secrecy by committees of national officials meeting in the European Council. From what we know now, the Tampere summit looks to be the greatest threat to civil liberties in Europe since the end of world war two," says Mr Jakobi, who gave evidence to the relevant House of Lords committee last month. "The political drive towards the creation of a European legal space is largely, if not entirely, fuelled by law 'n order concerns. The balance implied by "Liberty, Security and Justice" is becoming in practice an obsession with Security, the prosecution of trans-national crime," said Mr Jakobi, a Richmond-based solicitor who runs "Fair Trials Abroad" Without proper safe guards, he warned the Lords, the Tampere summit could create "instruments of tyranny by default". (Guardian Martin Walker 19/7/99)

There are people who deny that our ancient legal rights are at risk. This is part of a communication on the subject by Mr Eric Illesley Labour MP for Barnsley Central, "With reference to your anti European rantings on the one hand you try to put up an argument on corpus juris which is absolute crap and then rant on about Treason! How do you expect anyone in their right mind to take you farts seriously?" (Eurofaq posting 24/4/00)

The EU is about to assume the principal attribute of a State, which is the power to put people in prison. . (Eurofaq posting 26/2/99- Torquil Dick-Erikson)

"It is true that the Amsterdam Treaty does announce the forthcoming creation of the crime of xenophobia. So far it has not yet been created. No policeman can arrest you today and charge you with "xenophobia" in the way someone can be charged with "incitement to racial hatred". As long as our magistrates and judges do not work to a political mandate or agenda, and as long as we have the great safeguard of Trial by Independent Jury, it would be very hard to obtain convictions on something so vague. Xenophobia is literally "irrational fear of foreigners", and that is a subjective feeling, and nobody can criminalise a subjective feeling. Only objective actions can be criminal offences. It will probably be defined along lines similar to those of the old Fascist laws now being used against the Lega Nord in Italy". (T.Dick-Erikson Eurofaq posting , 04 Nov 1998)

The European Monitoring Centre On Racism and Xenophobia, officially opened for business in April 2000 "The centre believes that the legitimacy accorded to the xenophobic views of the Freedom Party by its involvement in government might encourage other xenophobic and anti-Europe parties to try to emulate its campaigning tactics and electoral success. That is why we attach such importance to the charter of European political parties for a non-racist society, which aims to rid politics of the scourge of xenophobia and the politics of exclusion and fear". (European Voice 22/4/00)

A Methodist church was asked to apologise to Germans about a spoof EU directive. The joke doing the rounds on the internet fell fowl of race equality watchdogs. St Martin's Church, Gloucester, reproduced the spoof in their newsletter. It said that the European Commission had ruled that the English language is to become the standard language of Europe. In this, however, English was to be transformed into cod German in the manner of comic books and B-movies. Gloucestershire's Race Equality Council called on the church to apologise. (The Times 26/11/98)

The ECHU has ruled the UK courts martial system illegal.

Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates law of European Court of Human Rights into British law i.e. an utterly alien system of 'rights' - and not based on precedent as is British law (UKIP posting 9/4/00)

Exclusion orders under the Prevention Of Terrorism Act are unlawful according to a ruling by the European Court of Justice ( Daily Tel 1/12/95)

European Court judges overturned criminal law in an EU member state - ruling it was incompatible with the Treaty of Rome. The Luxembourg judges acknowledged that in principle criminal legislation was a matter for national authorities alone. But the verdict that changes Greek penalties for drugs offences will be seized upon as another sign of sovereignty lost to Europe. The Court ruled that Greece could not expel convicted drug users for life - because it breaches EU laws guaranteeing freedom of movement for all EU citizens. (PA News 19/1/99)

Corpus Juris, the proposed European Criminal code, would punish Mr Van Buitenen for blowing his whistle - Article 6, Disclosure of Secrets pertaining to one's Office. (Eurofaq posting C J Arkell 23/2/99)

The jury system to be phased out. (The UK and Irish jury system is unique in Europe and cannot survive complete harmonisation-Ed). The Irish are dispensing with juries in criminal cases. The Labour government has signalled support for the proposal to abolish the right to trial by jury for petty offences. (Daily Telegraph 15/11/97). The Home Secretary Jack Straw has issued proposals to abolish the right to trial by jury for a wide range of middle raking offences. He said other countries regard our system of jury trials as "Eccentric". One option is the complete abolition of jury trials. (Guardian 29/7/98). The House of Lords has roundly rejected the Mode of Trial Bill to curtail the right to trial by jury. Jack Straw, Home Secretary, said the Lords are opposing the will of the elected house. However, the Commons has not even debated this bill. In which case how can the Lords be defying the Commons? (Eurofaq posting quoting BBC announcement 20/1/00). At present a magistrate will send a convicted defendant to the Crown Court for sentencing by a judge if he wishes a sentence of more than six months to be given. If the magistrate is allowed to continue to send convicted defendants for Crown Court sentencing, a defendant could find himself sent down for several years having been denied a jury trial. (Robert Henderson/Sean Gabb 11/3/00) The government has suffered an embarrassing defeat in the House of Lords over plans to end the right of some defendants in England and Wales to choose trial by jury. Labour rebels joined Liberal Democrat and Independent peers in supporting a Conservative wrecking amendment which killed off the controversial proposals. (BBC Online 29/09/00)

Persons charged with tax evasion will appear in magistrate's courts not