Home page Arrest warrant nonsense Many members of the European parliament are trying to urge governments to remove obstacles to the EU arrest warrant. This warrant came into force in January 2004. It allows judges in EU member states to request that other member states' extradite suspects, including their own nationals. But the warrant is not used widely because of a lack of trust among member states' authorities. Some MEPs consider the lack of mutual trust to be related to the absense of adequate minimum standards in criminal procedures as being the reason for a lack of effective judicial collaboration. Some MEPs have suggested that the arrest warrant should be part of the so-called first pillar of EU legislation where the union has most powers as proposed in the draft European constitution. Typical of the justification of this approach is that this would enhance the "democratic character" of the warrant by making it subject to the European Court of Justice. The problem is that some changes in the national law to introduce some form of harmonization will not solve the issue of lack of trust. The lack of trust is the illegitimate nature of the way in which many European judges are appointed. Many are political party appointees and therefore fail the most basic tests of impartiality and independence. This is why the MEPs concern with the interference of governments and politicians in the European arrest warrant is somewhat absurd since their solution is to hand the process over to a politically compromised judiciary. The whole process and the debate are ridiculous and dangerous to individual freedom. One safeguard would be to have such cases reviewed by juries (community conscience). However. whereas this is understood in England, it is counter-intuitive to the majority of the European populations who are not accustomed to the population having the power, within the legal process, to defend individuals against arbitrary decisions. Indeed, there seems to be a general fear of legal process on the part of the general European public. Legal process is considered to be something soley of the competence of all powerful judges, their political party sponsors and governments. In other words, law is highly politicised but never admitted to be so, least of all by the public. This is why the lament of the MEPs concerning the EU arrest warrant, either reflects ignorance of the operational game plans in European courts or a desire to mislead the public that the MEPs are concerned about the protection of the public. It is indeed good that the arrest warrant has encountered difficulties in countries such as Cyprus, Germany and Poland because it would operate in contravention to their national constitutions. It is shameful that the British government supports such a warrant, in spite of its use in a very high profile case involving the return of a suspect in the bombings in London (21st July 2005) from Italy to the United Kingdom. Some think that it is necessary for the EU governments to agree on decent interpretation combined with a declaration of rights and legal aid. But these fine sounding statements will do nothing to improve fair trial safeguards when the judges themselves are biased and there is no role for the community conscience in the form of a jury to safeguard the individual against such built-in arbitrariness.