NOVANEWS
URGENT: War criminals not welcome – Oppose changes to universal jurisdiction
The recently published Police Reform Bill includes proposals which, if passed, will make it much more difficult to obtain an arrest warrant for anyone accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Currently, for a magistrate to issue an arrest warrant, serious evidence must be presented against the person concerned. The proposed change adds a political dimension to a legal decision and introduces a source of delay when urgent action may be required to stop a suspect escaping justice. Britain has a duty to seek out and prosecute those responsible for war crimes.
PSC and other NGO’s are calling for MPs to vote against these proposed changes. The current law fully complies with the Geneva convention and the proposed changed will allow politicians to interfere with requests to issue arrest warrants for war criminals.
If passed the new legislations would allow the DPP, who is appointed and “superintended” by a government minister, the Attorney General, would have a veto over whether a suspected war criminal to be arrested, no matter how clear the evidence. And the DPP could find themselves under immense pressure from their boss, the Attorney General, to refuse an arrest warrant application if it was for someone from what the government considered an ‘ally’ country.
The situation is now critical. We are asking everyone to contact their MPs and insist that they vote against these proposals.
Even if you have already emailed your MP on this issue previously, it is important that you take 2 minutes to send them a new message, asking them to vote against the formally proposed changes. PSC have set up an easy to use e-tool to allow you to send a model letter to your MP.
Follow up your email by arranging a meeting with your MP at their next surgery. You can find your MP’s contact details at: http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/
For more information: Read the PSC briefing on why we should oppose changes to the law.
PSC Briefing – Universal Jurisdiction: Why we should oppose changes to the law
What is Universal Jurisdiction?
Universal Jurisdiction allows national courts to try cases of the gravest crimes against humanity, even if these crimes are not committed in the national territory.
The principle is that no country should be a safe haven for those who commit those crimes universally recognised as war crimes and crimes against humanity.
What are the changes the government wants to make?
In July 2010, the Ministry of Justice announced that proposals would be brought forward to change the current legislation to give the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) veto power over issuing private arrest warrants against alleged international criminals who visit Britain.
This would mean that the DPP, who is “superintended” by the geovernment appointed Attorney General, can prevent the decision for an arrest warrant to be issued at their discretion.
Why they are changing the law?
Following the issuing of an arrest warrant for Tzipi Livni last December and the threat of arrest warrants against other Israelis accused of war crimes, the government responded to Israeli government pressure and made an election pledge to change the law on Universal Jurisdiction.
What is the current system?
The current position is that a private individual may apply to a magistrate for an arrest warrant if the suspected war criminal is visiting or expected to visit a country. The Attorney General’s consent is needed for the prosecution to go ahead. But under Section 25 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, absence of consent does not prevent the issue of a warrant, if the magistrate considers that:
-
there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence under such legislation has been committed;
-
admissible evidence has been presented which (if uncontradicted) establishes the elements of the offence alleged;
-
s/he has jurisdiction to issue the warrant and has ruled out the immunity of the suspect.
The right to bring a private prosecution for a criminal offence is one of the oldest rights known to common law. The right remains “a valuable constitutional safeguard against inertia or partiality on the part of the authority. It is a useful constitutional safeguard against capricious, corrupt or biased failure or refusal of those authorities to prosecute offenders against the criminal law” Lord Diplock
Those in favour of changes have argued that the system is being abused and that magistrates are issuing warrants with flimsy evidence. This move is against the principles of universal jurisdiction and justice.
What are the major problems with the changes?
The proposed changes are detrimental to the effective application of universal jurisdiction. Requiring the DPP to consider each application at the arrest warrant stage:
-
allows for political influence to impact on the outcome;
-
delays proceedings, allowing time for a suspected criminal to leave the country;
-
inevitably hampers the work of the police in executing an effective arrest.
