European Court of Justice is a sick joke

During a debate on European Arrest Warrant (EAW) opt-ins in the House of Commons in July 2014, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Conservative MP for North East Somerset, remarked:

“As was said earlier, we are now willing to sacrifice the fundamental principle of Magna Carta: that no one will be imprisoned, fined or held against their will without the judgment of a court. We are now willing to allow that principle to be abrogated by a Polish magistrate. Surely, wise and good though Polish magistrates may be, it is not worth the theft of a wheelbarrow to undermine something that has been our protector for 799 years.”

During the debate, the Government argued that the EAW measures were essential so nasty criminals who had ventured to other European countries could be dragged back to the UK and face trial. Sounds compelling? Well, it’s not as if we haven’t got extradition agreements with other countries around the world and we managed perfectly well without the EAW. Lest we forget, innocent men and women have found themselves languishing in some rather unpleasant foreign jails as a result of the EAW. Fair enough, some will say: if they can’t do the time, they shouldn’t do the crime. The problem is, many of them haven’t committed a crime and are held on remand without ever fully knowing what the case is against them. That wouldn’t happen in the UK, and we shouldn’t have entered into an agreement that puts UK citizens in that position.

Despite all of this, the Home Secretary regards the EAW as a key reason for the UK to remain a member of the European Union. I wonder what her reply is going to be to the latest pronouncement from the European Court of Justice (ECJ)?

Before we get to that, here is some background information on two cases courtesy of the Daily Mail:

“A Hungarian investigating magistrate issued two EAWs with respect to Pal Aranyosi, a Hungarian national, so that a criminal prosecution could be brought for alleged offences of forced entry and theft.

“The other case involved an EAW issued by a Romanian court in relation to Robert Caldararu to secure the enforcement of a prison sentence of one year and eight months imposed for driving without a driving licence.

“Both men were located in Germany, where Mr Caldararu is currently detained. Mr Aranyosi is not in custody.

“A German regional court found that the detention conditions to which Mr Aranyosi and Mr Caldararu might be subject in the Hungarian and Romanian prisons respectively were contrary to fundamental rights.

“The ruling highlighted provisions which prohibit inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The German courts then referred this decision to the ECJ who wholeheartedly agreed with them. If sending them back to face trial means an infringement of their human rights, then each EU member state (including the UK) should not do so.

Both Hungary and Romania are members of the European Union. If their prisons are so bad, and their treatment of prisoners is so appalling, why were they allowed to join? Doesn’t this also mean the EAW isn’t worth the paper it’s written on? Anyone can claim that their human rights are being violated. It has become a growth industry. Just because Hungary and Romania put more people in prison, doesn’t mean that other criminals should be allowed to walk free, does it?

Here is a scenario for you that I am sure is being played out as I write. Someone from either Hungary or Romania committed a crime, and because of the free movement of people, found it very easy to cross the border to escape apprehension. They then decided that the UK was a good place to make a new life for themselves. Magistrates in either Hungary or Romania then find out where they are living and issue an EAW for their arrest. They are duly arrested and a British court agrees that they should be deported. But the British court then finds itself in a position where it cannot deport them back to their country of origin as it will infringe their human rights. We are then stuck a foreign national, who is also a criminal, who we cannot get rid of.

Doesn’t sound good, does it? Here’s another scenario that worked well long before the EAW.

Another EU country finds out that a wanted criminal has fled their country and they want them back to face trial. Because of an extradition treaty between the UK and the EU, the police arrest this person and the case goes before a British court. If the British court agrees that the said criminal has a case to answer in the other EU country, he is then deported. The ECJ doesn’t get involved; we manage to remove someone we didn’t want in the first place, and justice can be done in the country where the crime was committed.

Of course, if we weren’t members of the EU, we wouldn’t have to accept free movement of people. We could admit foreign nationals into the UK on a case-by-case basis. This would mean it was less likely that the criminal in question would even make it here. Another reason to vote to leave the EU.

Not only has the EAW allowed Andrew Symeou to languish for almost two years in a Greek jail for a crime he didn’t commit, thanks to the ECJ, it also allows real criminals to escape justice, too.

I know which of the scenarios above I would prefer.