AND THE THREAT TO BRITISH COMMON LAW RIGHTS
THE EU WILL NOW GET POWERS TO ARREST AND DETAIN BRITISH CITIZENS ON BRITISH
SOIL, UNDER THEIR INQUISTIONAL SYSTEM OF LAWS
TAMPERE, FINLAND, 15-16th
Many people see Britain as being the home of
FREEDOM as we created our unique system of parliamentary democracy backed by
our 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
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
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
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
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?
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"
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 19th Reports,
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?
the face of it – probably not. CJ can be brought in regardless of whether we
adopt the Euro or not
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)
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.
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?
with so many dickats 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")
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
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
- Write to friends and
relatives in the USA and Commonwealth, tell them to alert their Congressmen
Prepared by Torquil Dick-Erikson and Christopher
Mowbray (Democracy Movement, Richmond & Twickenham Branch)If you require more
information or wish to help us inform the British Peoples of the danger they
OR write to Greg @ Glance Back Books,
17 Upper Church Street, CHEPSTOW, NP16 5EX,
(with a small contribution to costs)
THE CHOICE IS YOURS.
REMAIN INDIFFERENT AND WE WILL LOSE 700 YEARS OF OUR HARD WON FREEDOMS.
ONE OF BRITAIN’S FINEST CONTRIBUTIONS TO HUMAN CIVILIZATION IS "LIBERTY UNDER
THE LAW" ASSURED BY OUR COMMON LAW RIGHTS OF TRIAL-BY-JURY AND HABEAS CORPUS
information is from Silent Majority and there is much more there. Please visit
the site and start with Eurorealist link. Lots of information all verefied.
This site has
the Corpis Juris wording and effects specifically.