Ex-Shropshire MP Christopher Gill warns on European extradition powers
Plans to sign Britain up to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) will put criminal justice "irretrievably" beyond the reach of the UK Parliament, a former MP has warned.
Christopher Gill, who used to represent Ludlow, has written to MPs with a copy of legal advice he has obtained ahead of a vote on whether the UK should opt back in to 35 European Union police and criminal justice measures.
The plans drew criticism from Tory backbenchers after home secretary Theresa May claimed it was a "good deal" for the UK. Right wing and Eurosceptic Tories are concerned that the warrant could be used by foreign courts to extradite British citizens for minor breaches of the law. MPs have been promised a vote on the issue.
Mr Gill, who was a Tory MP until 2001 but joined Ukip, said in his letter:
"A positive vote in favour of opting back in will make all these measures, which includes the European Arrest Warrant, 'subject to the full jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the enforcement powers of the European Commission'.
"In other words, all of these measures will be placed, irretrievably, beyond the reach of the United Kingdom Parliament."
Quoting from the opinion of Jonathan Fisher QC, Mr Gill added: "Mr Fisher opines that 'with regard to the question of whether the UK's opt-out from the jurisdiction of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) will be rendered ineffective owing to the ability of the EPPO to initiate the issue of an EAW and secure its execution in the UK, it is quite clear that it would'.
"He goes on to say that 'in this way, the non-participating country can be said to have lost exclusive control over the instances when criminal jurisdiction can be exercised within its borders, since by virtue of the EAW procedure the EPPO will have been able to arrest a citizen in the non-participating country in circumstances where the latter will not have desired this outcome'.
"I very much hope that you will have regard to this incisive legal opinion before casting your vote on an issue which potentially affects the fundamental freedom of each and every one of your constituents."
