Why we must resist Corpus Juris
by Torquil Dick-Erikson and
Christopher Mowbray (Democracy Movement, Richmond & Twickenham Branch - 1999
Many people see Britain as being
the home of Freedom as we created our unique system of parliamentary democracy
backed by Common Law The latter has been adopted, in various forms, by the
other English speaking nations, notably the USA, Australia, New Zealand,
Canada, Ireland and Malta.
Our legal system is unique in
that it embodies our concept of the individual’s freedom (Power of the People
as embodied in our Common Law) and makes our laws quite different to those of
our friends in Continental Europe. These ancient rights are now under imminent
threat from Brussels under a proposal known as ‘Corpus Juris’ ("CJ").
How our law differs from
that of Continental Europe
-
Our Common Law, as far back as 1215 with
Magna Carta, states that a citizen can only be judged by his peers (Section
39). These rights protect the individual against arbitrary conviction and
imprisonment. Our Common Law recognises several vital rights to the citizen:
-
The right of Habeas
Corpus (that the accused must
be taken to a public court within a very short period of time, usually 24
hours, and the accusers must produce their evidence then and there)
-
The right to Trial by Jury at which jurors
can in fact even disregard the law if they think it would give an unjust
conviction. The jurors are thus ‘sovereign’
-
If found innocent, the accused cannot be
tried again on the same charge (‘double jeopardy’)
-
In other words our process is 1) suspicion,
2) investigation, 3) arrest, 4) charge
2. Under the Continental
system, know as the Inquisitorial System (often loosely referred to as the
Napoleonic system) things are quite different:
-
In Europe the sequence of events is 1)
suspicion, 2) arrest, 3) investigation
and 4) charge. In
other words the citizen can be arrested and imprisoned without anyone having
to produce any evidence against him. There is therefore:
-
No Habeas
Corpus so one can be
imprisoned for very long periods (weeks, months, occasionally years) without
any evidence being produced against you
-
No right to Trial by Jury as their system
involves judgements being made by a career judiciary who are the judges and
prosecutors and who are, to all intents and purposes, ‘colleagues’ (a quite
separate body of lawyers makes the defence and are often treated as
inferiors)
In most instances the accused
can be tried a second time for the same offence, since the prosecution has the
right of appeal against acquittal
What is
Corpus Juris?
In April 1997 a seminar was held
in San Sebastian, Spain, to discuss a proposal for the ‘Criminal protection of
the financial interests of the European Union’ (CJ) under the auspices of the
Directorate General XX of the European Commission. Subsequently there have
been numerous attempts at denying that the European Commission has been
involved in these proposals and that the meeting was just a non related
discussion group. "The objectives of the seminar were twofold: to seek to
call the attention of jurists in general to the need for effective protection
of the Community budget, particularly in connection with fraud against
subsidies: and to make known the contents of the CJ for protection of these
financial interests, which has been conceived as the embryo of a future
European Criminal Code"
The proposals aim to:
-
Introduce a single legal area with the
European union
-
Introduce a European
Public Prosecutor ("EPP") with
national public prosecutors being "under a duty to assist" him or her
(Article 18.5)
-
There will be a "Judge of Freedoms" whose
function is ostensibly to protect the citizen’s rights, which however do not
include the right to demand that evidence be produced. This means, of
course, that an enforceable arrest warrants can be granted without there
actually being any evidence at all, since there is no right to verify it at
that stage.
-
A European
Warrant of arrest shall be issued
by a national judge on "instructions" of the EPP, and any police force in
any member State can be required to enforce it.
-
A suspect can be imprisoned without charge
for 6 months, renewable for a further 3 months without any limit to the
number of renewals
-
The ‘trial’ shall be heard by professional
judges, specifically without "simple jurors" or "even lay magistrates" (a
clear and specific reference to the British trial system where the crucial
decisions are taken by ordinary people)
-
An accused can be retried on the same charge
if found innocent (i.e. the prosecution can appeal against an acquittal)
How can
it be imposed on Britain?
-
Speaking for the government in Parliament
Kate Hoey stated that CJ proposals would infringe on civil liberties and
could not be introduced into Britain as the government would veto any such
move.
-
The House of Lords is the only public body
in Britain to have reviewed CJ in detail (HofL 9th and
19thReports, 1998/99 session). Some of the findings were:
-
They interviewed two EU representatives who
stated that CJ could, and will, be introduced under Article 280 of the
Amsterdam Treaty (pages 84 and 85, 9th Report).
Article 280 provides for Qualified Majority Voting so Britain will have no
veto.
-
Advice from the Law Societies of both
England and Scotland stated that CJ was unacceptable
-
In the second HofL report on page 73 Jack
Straw, Home Secretary, stated that he was unaware of any proposals for the
introduction of Justice & Home Affairs measures by Qualified Majority Voting
- presumably he never read the earlier report !!!
When may
CJ be introduced?
-
Basically at any time now that the new
European Commission has been established.
-
In March the European Parliament "welcomed
CJ" in principle with support from all Britain’s MEPs bar two Labour MEPs.
Subsequently the Conservative MEPs claimed that they had voted the wrong way
by mistake! Presumably the Labour and LibDem MEPs meant to support the CJ
proposals, although Blair has not yet been asked why his MEPs all flouted
his government’s stated policy which is to reject CJ. One of the motions
approved stated that CJ could be applied to ‘serious crimes’, undefined of
course, opening the door to CJ being applied to areas outside EU fraud.
-
On 11th September
the Wise Men, who had previously revealed fraud in the European Commission,
recommended that CJ be introduced in a three step programme – clearly
designed to sugar the pill so that the British will swallow it:
-
Step 1: should just apply to the European
Commission and its employees
-
Step 2: establish a Prosecutor’s office in
each member state to work with the national police & courts
-
Step 3: link the central and peripheral
offices and establish a European Prosecutor’s office after holding an
Intergovernmental Conference which would clearly be to ratify the
introduction of CJ
-
The next European Council of Heads of State
& Government takes place in Finland on 15/16 October 1999. On the agenda is
the creation of a "single judicial space" – i.e. all of the above.
Can CJ be stopped?
On the face of it – probably
not. CJ can be brought in regardless of whether we adopt the Euro or not. A
compromise proposal appears to be on the table from Britain which would
introduce the concept of ‘mutual recognition’ of every EU country’s legal
decisions by criminal courts. This proposal would remove our Habeas
Corpus safeguards and we would
accept that a judge in another EU country could order the arrest of a UK
citizen on UK soil under their laws, without having to produce any evidence
(in fact this situation already exists in the case of extradition within the
EU) or any formality whatsoever (it is still possible to produce arguments to
resist extradition requests. This last possibility will be eliminated)
CJ is coming whatever our
government may say. It looks likely that it will be introduced in the
time-honoured EU fashion - by stealth. Initially it may well look innocuous,
indeed even desirable. After all, who is going to stand up and say that fraud
with the European Commission itself should not be tackled? Once the principal
has been accepted then it will be much easier for them to apply it as an
overall EU Code of Criminal Law.
If CJ is imposed and Britain
refuses to accept then the issue will go before the European Court of Justice
which surely will uphold the majority decision to introduce it under Article
280 of the Amsterdam Treaty.
What can be done about
this?
As with so many diktats from
Brussels, CJ is following a well worn path: a secretive start to the proposal,
then disclosure by a whistle blower, then government and often EU denials ("it
is only a discussion paper" – "nothing to worry about" – "we can stop it
anyway"), followed by its introduction into legislation by stealth; and then,
when the full horror is revealed, a shrug of the shoulders ("well, it is too
late now to do anything")
So what can be done?
-
Write to the press, nationally (especially
the Sun) and local
newspapers
-
Complain to your MP and MEP, and demand that
they state their position on CJ
-
Speak to local lawyers
-
Keep up-to-date by following CJ developments
in the press (so far Daily
Telegraph and Private
Eye) and, if you have Internet access sites such as www.ukdemocracy.co.uk.
Contact the Freedom Association (0171-928-9925) and your local Democracy
Movement and UK Independence Party Branch, one of whom may know about CJ
- On
the internet follow CJ developments on EuroFAQ (eurofaq@onelist.com)
-
Write to friends and relatives in the USA and Commonwealth, tell them to
alert their Congressmen etc
|
UK
Independence Party
UKIP MEPs in Eur Parliament
BBC
Channel 4
ITV
Sky
Daily Express
Daily Mail
Daily Star
Daily Telegraph
Economist
Europe News
Evening Standard
Financial Times
Guardian
Independent
Kent Online
Kent on Sunday
Spectator
Sun
Times
|