By Hilary White
LONDON, September 9, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – On 6 June this summer, the European Union Ministers of Justice reached an agreement that would allow trials in absentia to be recognised across the EU. The EU wants courts to have the ability to pass judgement in criminal cases and when issuing fines or European Arrest Warrants without the defendants being present. Changes to the rules regarding Europe-wide extradition could see citizens “fast-tracked” out of their home countries after a trial has already been conducted and a guilty verdict reached.
The UK Government is currently backing the draft Framework Decision, and the European Parliament endorsed it, by an overwhelming majority, this week. It will now go to the Council of Ministers for final approval within the next three months. Baroness Scotland, Attorney General of England and Wales, told media that the proposals will reinforce “a fundamental cornerstone of British justice.”
“Trials in absence are not new – they are already allowed under the national law of European countries, including the UK.” she said. Baroness Scotland said that the rules ensure that “a defendant is guaranteed a right to a retrial if they were not properly represented or they were not adequately informed.”
But many civil rights organisations are strongly criticising the proposals, saying that they violate some of the fundamental principles of British Common Law such as the right of the accused to representation, to face his accusers in court and answer charges.
Philip Bradbourn, the opposition Tory justice and home affairs spokesman said, “If other EU countries want to go ahead with this proposal that’s their choice, but the British Government should have no part of it.” He warned that to adopt the move would be “throwing habeas corpus out of the window.”
UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage MEP has angrily attacked the plans that would allow British citizens to be tried in their absence or automatically extradited to other member states. Mr. Farage said, “If we’re accused we must be able to know who accused us. If we are to be tried for a crime we must be able to mount a defence.”
“Yet now we can be dragged away to another country to rot in jail without there even being a pretence of a fair trial.”
The laws concern changes to the procedural rules of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), a means to allow the arrest and extradition of criminal suspects which is valid throughout the European Union (EU). A court ruling in Germany in 2005 found that the German law implementing the EAW was unconstitutional. The EAW came under criticism by the Council of the European Union after it was issued in such minor cases as possession of tiny quantities of illegal drugs, theft of two car tyres, driving a car under the influence of alcohol or, in one case, the theft of a piglet.
Mr. Farage said, “If other European nations want to adopt our own higher protections, our greater civil liberties, then they are of course quite free to, without EU compulsion. But why should we destroy our own freedoms just to fit in with them?”
The group Fair Trials International works for “fair trials based on international standards of justice”, aims particularly to “defend the rights of those facing charges in a country other than their own.” FTI warns in submission to the Ministry of Justice that the government’s proposed measures do not sufficiently safeguard “fundamental procedural rights for suspects in criminal proceedings.”
Regarding these violations of fair trial rights, FTI wrote, “It is a fundamental right of the defendant in criminal proceedings to be present in court and to be able to instruct a lawyer of their choosing. It is imperative that the defendant has the opportunity to communicate with their lawyer throughout the proceedings.”
The European Criminal Bar Association sent an open letter to Euro-MPs warning that the proposals will undermine legal rights. “One member state could issue a European arrest warrant on the basis of an in absentia judgment, although the accused never had the chance to be heard – for example, after a traffic accident or the use of a credit card in that country,” said the letter.