Exclusive – Update on the Portuguese European Arrest Warrant.
Oh dear, oh dear.
I would not want to take anything away from Mr Jörling’s achievement in making the most of his life after his tragic injury in Portugal, nor do I seek to make fun of him whatsoever.
But as a ‘murder victim’ he leaves a lot to be desired – he doesn’t even have the decency to look marginally ‘peaky’. Why should he, he’s not dead.
This is the man that led to Graham Mitchell spending the night in Wandsworth Prison as a category ‘A’ prisoner – accused of murder. Graham is still on bail. Reporting to the police station every day because he stands accused of murdering someone who is alive and well.
Fortunately for Mr Jörling he is alive and well – playing wheelchair basketball for RSC Osnabrück at Premier League level.
Which is a tad embarrassing for the Portuguese authorities.
Here is the full RSC Osnabrück team for the 2012 season. Mr Jörling plays Forward, No 8 on his shirt. Here is the link to his current biography.
I am sure all my readers will wish them the best of luck for the coming season.
The (basket) ball is in your court now Portugal.
| Nr. | Name | Alter | Klassifizierung | Position |
| 4 | Rother, Mareike | 22 | 1,5 | Forward |
| 5 | Nohl, Dennis | 24 | 4,5 NB | Center |
| 7 | Glanemann, Michael | 50 | 4,5 NB | Center |
| 8 | Jörling, Andre | 42 | 1,0 | Forward |
| 9 | Hüsemann, Bernd | 38 | 1,5 | Guard / Forward |
| 10 | Greiwe, Volker | 39 | 3,0 | Center / Forward |
| 11 | Happeck, Rainer | 50 | 2,0 | Guard / Forward |
| 13 | Hotfilter, Anja | 23 | 4,5 NB | Center |
| 14 | Fuchte, Christiane | 33 | 4,5 NB | Center |
| 15 | Springmeier, Rudi | 46 | 4,5 MB | Center |
-
1
March 13, 2012 at 16:24 -
Bloody hell!
-
2
March 13, 2012 at 16:27 -
Brilliant, isn’t it?
-
3
March 13, 2012 at 16:52 -
If this was a case in the US legal system (you know, the one so reviled in the recent cases) Graham would now be expecting a hefty payout in damages and a law firm would be ordering hookers and champagne…
-
4
March 13, 2012 at 16:54 -
The fat lady hasn’t sung yet…..
-
5
March 13, 2012 at 17:15 -
Oh I can see all sorts of claims here, against everybody….! This could actually spell the death knell of the whole system…
-
-
6
March 14, 2012 at 07:52 -
Not so sure Julia. Look at the shocking extraditions that the UK has knuckled under to the good ole “US of A” recently. It’s all one sided too.
-
-
-
-
7
March 13, 2012 at 16:29 -
Let us look forward to a speedy and suitably apologetic resolution of the matter by the Portugese authorities.
Verily, the law is an ass sometimes….
Kudos to Anna for her investigative work.
-
8
March 13, 2012 at 16:30
-
-
9
March 13, 2012 at 16:42 -
So under the existing Treaty which has legal effect in the UK one can be locked up on suspicion in advance of extradition for a crime that has not been committed?
No wonder Nick Clegg thinks it is essential for “keeping people safe”.
It’s obviously a mistake, but a system which allows for such mistakes is, well, worthy of serious anger by Her Majesty’s Loyal Subjects.
-
10
March 13, 2012 at 20:29 -
Well Clegg is correct, it’s worked at keeping people safe – Mr Jörling is indeed perfectly safe.
Seriously though it’s just so apalling that anyone would ever agree to such a system that lacks even the most basic of checks and legal protections. I hope Mr Mitchell sues, both long and hard! -
11
March 14, 2012 at 07:55 -
Yes a mistake. However, an ECHR issue none the less and one if found to have been breached as this clearly was has the enforceable right of compensation in the courts.
-
-
12
March 13, 2012 at 17:00 -
I have to ask why there isn’t the same fuss being made of this in the mainstream media as has been made about white-collar business men being winged across to the USA. Prima Facia evidence doesn’t appear ot have been required in this instance either. I’m just a plebe not a lawyer – perhaps some of the more legally skilled can explain it to me?
-
13
March 13, 2012 at 17:01 -
Prima Facia evidence doesn’t have to be produced. It was supposed to simplify the system….
-
14
March 13, 2012 at 17:06 -
Well it has certainly done that. Their assumption that the system is error-free seems a tad optimistic though.
-
15
March 13, 2012 at 17:07 -
The lack of requirement for prima facie evidence seems to me to be based on an entirely false premise, namely that the “justice” systems of each of the other 26 countries in the EU are *more* trustworthy than our own system. In England you can’t be arrested just because someone says you did something criminal, there has to be reasonable suspicion on the part of the arresting person (or Magistrate if it’s a warrant). In this case the warrant is issued without a shred of even a proper allegation it seems.
Totally bizarre.
Why don’t we have a constitutional court which can throw stuff like this out? Oh wait, we do. I hope Mr Mitchell takes the European Arrest Warrant to the cleaners.
-
16
March 13, 2012 at 17:13 -
And the best of it is the Portugese aren’t the ones wasting police resources on this bogus warrant. All they have to do is spit out some piece of paper and if it turns out its all a mistake shrug their shoulders, say oops and go on their merry way.
If there is no cost associated with a mistake, people tend not to waste time checking the littel details – like a dead person alive and well.
-
-
17
March 13, 2012 at 17:28 -
still shaking my head… simplify the system…. ye gods above and below…..
-
18
March 13, 2012 at 23:39 -
Shades of the old 18th Century French lettre de cachet – what is it about the Europeans and kowtowing to unelected authoritarian systems…it would never happen here….?
-
-
-
-
19
March 13, 2012 at 17:00 -
Well done Anna and many congratulations to your Portuguese friend.
-
20
March 13, 2012 at 17:18 -
The war on terror is over-we lost!
We lost, habeus corpus, double jeopardy, and common sense.
We lost, thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, the freedom to travel unhindered by the shoe-and-belt gestapo and the freedom to transfer our money into overseas banks without prying bureaucracy.
I wish Graham well, and hope that he launchs an American-style wrongful arrest and incompetence suit against the magistrates.
As for Nick Clegg and the other time-servers, it is too much to hope that they would represent their constituents, we can only hope he is some day subject to some rough-justice.-
21
March 13, 2012 at 17:29 -
seconded
-
22
March 13, 2012 at 18:06 -
Sadly, I can’t see much hope of redress against the magistrates. They act on what is in front of them. As to wrongful arrest, if there’s a warrant, then if memory serves correctly the arrest can not be unlawful. His actions should be directed at the Portuguese police, methinks.
-
23
March 13, 2012 at 20:28 -
Cato, I defer to your superior knowledge of UK law, but reportedly the magistrate acted “On a European Arrest Warrant there are a number of tick boxes showing the reason for the arrest; things like ‘absconded from bail’ or ‘failed to pay fine’ – none of them were ticked on this warrant, not one” If the relevant authorities cannot correctly fill-in one of their own forms, the accusation should have been denied, perhaps with a promise to re-appear when proper paperwork could be provided. As to the arrest warrant it was obviously based on no crime, so it was executed improperly.
Magistrates should not be denying people their lawful freedom because some flunky writes someones name on a form with NO charge. They should also be excoriating the police for arresting somebody for no known cause.
The Portuguese police are complicit but they did NOT deny Graham of his freedom, however for good measure sue them both and the Home Secretary too.-
24
March 14, 2012 at 19:02 -
@cascadian. I take your point regarding the first part and agree but the Magistrates have to act according to what is presented to the. Neither you, I, nor Anna were present so we don’t know which boxes were ticked or unticked.
Regarding the second point; the warrant was sent (presumably) to the local police. They are in no position to question same but act thereupon. The arrest of the subject can not be unlawful since the police were acting on a warrant. It might be improper but can not be unlawful.-
25
March 14, 2012 at 22:39 -
Cato, you obviously have practical knowledge of the administration of law in the UK, I do not, I also do not live in the UK, therefore as before I defer to your knowledge and suspect that you are correct that there will be no repercussions for the actions of the magistrate or police personnel.
I can almost visualize you smiling and shaking your head as you say “What an idealistic old fool that cascadian is, does he still beleive the legal system dispenses justice?”
What I am exercised about is the blind odedience to protocol in the absence of corroborating paperwork
You point out that none of us are privy to the full facts-true, that is why I was careful to refer to the facts reported, on that basis I submit that both the over zealous police and the magistrate should NOT have acted on the (reportedly) incomplete warrant. As to the point that the police’s action was not unlawful I would once again question how a warrant can be acted upon when no crime is in fact defined (the missing check mark).
Police Officers and magistrates are invested with a large amount of power which I am sure the public wishes to be assured that they use with discretion and sensibly, in this case blind obedience to an (reportedly) incorrect form has caused great hardship.
I may in fact be missing something here as I have assumed that the same incorrect warrant was used by both the police and the magistrate.
-
-
-
-
-
26
March 13, 2012 at 17:19 -
Seriously though, has Mr Mitchell no redress ?
Great blogpost(s)
Kind regards
-
27
March 13, 2012 at 17:24 -
I bet this turns out to be a ‘database error’. I’m not massively involved with them at work but I look after a couple, even they, small though they are spit out data that has an affect in the real world because people don’t think to check things manually.
If that’s what this is, I’m surprised it hasn’t happened sooner.
But, all that is beside the point, the EAW is a terrible bit of law, we should not recognise them at all. It says something about Westminster when it continues to broker crap deals with other countries when it comes to foreign affairs and law, are the FO mandarins so spineless?
-
28
March 13, 2012 at 18:02 -
Probably just a typo in the Departimento de Retrevos Informatao in Lisboa – a similar thing happened in Brazil when Archibald Buttle was mistakenly arrested, tortured and killed instead of Archibald Tuttle.
But our MPs and MEPs won’t do anything.
-
31
March 13, 2012 at 19:11 -
Now lok here you gang of dangerous subversives, if a bureaucrat says he was murdered then he was murdered despite any evidence to the contrary.
You mudt never question authority.
-
32
March 13, 2012 at 19:14 -
I meant must. Lot of finger trouble today …
-
-
33
March 13, 2012 at 20:18 -
Anna: It is deeply sad that it appears to be necessary for a person in your friend’s position to basically extricate themselves from the mire, when completely innocent and when dealing with a foreign government… Thank goodness for excellent friends is all I can say!
This situation of dodgy arrest warrants cannot stand, surely, in the long term.
-
34
March 13, 2012 at 20:52 -
I hope he’s keeping notes and will ask a court in the UK to extradite some Portuguese officials to the UK on some suitable charges at some point, as well as suing them in a British court for a suitably large amount of money as compensation for their incompetence.
I hope he also gets his MP to raise the subject in Parliament (for all the good it may do) of how evil the EU arrest warrant is, that it can totally wreck someone’s life in such a way.
-
35
March 13, 2012 at 21:57 -
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the Portuguese prosecutor and not the Portuguese Police who issues an EAW?
-
36
March 14, 2012 at 09:43 -
It would be nice to think that this truly unjust incident would lead to a re-exmination of this terrible law but, as you know, the EU can do no wrong. I hope Graham gets this sorted out very soon.
-
37
March 14, 2012 at 11:13 -
I’m sure there must be a law under the British constitution that the Portuguese official who asked for, and the issuing official have broken. This situation is an outrage. I ask that all readers on this blog who care about your liberty and that of Mr. Mitchell to write to your MP today. Do not procrastinate, do it now. After all anyone of us could be in a similar predicament. Imagine being on holiday anywhere on the continent and have someone accuse you of a crime just because you happened to be nearby.
Will Mr. Mitchell be requiring a defense fund? I will willingly contribute.
-
38
March 14, 2012 at 13:35 -
I will happily contribute too.
An incorrectly filled out legal form concerning an offence which has not occurred. It is beyond outrageous that this is even being entertained.
-
-
39
March 14, 2012 at 12:10 -
Just to confirm, Andre is definitely still alive. Just had a phone call from his girlfriend’s girlfriend (he doesn’t speak English) confirming it.
OK, to be strict about it, I know that he was alive 90 minutes ago…..
-
43
March 14, 2012 at 13:32 -
Is it possible to have an EU arrest warrant issued for the arrest and rendition of the signatory of the original warrant? Wasting police time, false arrest, conspiracy to pervert et al. Individually, they could be spaced out over a number of years keeping the cretin(s) in a state of permanent bemusement.
Unfortunately, I doubt the Portuguese courts would be as accepting of the behaviour as ours seemingly are.
-
44
March 14, 2012 at 15:40 -
If The Portuguese Judiciary issued this warrant then surely they are responsible and at worst can be sued in The Court of Human Rights, years though it might take.
In the meantime, Britain needs to have another look at this very bad and one sided Law.-
45
March 14, 2012 at 22:25 -
Possibly. The Portuguese in what ever guise have hired Natasha Draycott of 5 St Andrews Hill to represent them in court.
http://www.5sah.co.uk/Barristers/Natasha-Draycott.shtml
She is not of the usual extradition team and it shows; she seemed to be caught right on the hop in court, crucially unaware of three important things:
1) Mr Jorling is alive, so what ever her clients want Graham Mitchell for, it can’t be murder.
2) Graham Mitchell was tried and acquitted in 1995, and therefore cannot be a fugitive.
3) “First Degree Murder” has no meaning in the Portuguese Penal Code 2007. She might at least have bothered to wiki it, which would have given her a fair guess at the correct article number to cite.
This absolutely stinks and the first port of call for reparations may be the chambers. That, however, is merely the legal argument about who is going to compensate Graham for this shocking slur which will now show up on enhanced CRB checks. This might be very inconvenient if Mr Mitchell wanted to volunteer with children.
The political argument is that our pols have signed this abomination in to UK law and they need to resile from any treaty and repeal any legislation giving effect to it pronto.
The best way to make the point would be to make some outragous claims from another country and get them to raise an EAW for Nick Clegg or similar. Until we see a few MPs being frogmarched down to the police station with no prima facie evidence, just an “I’m only doing my job” excuse, they are going to continue to believe that this does not happen to people like them, that extradition on a tissue of nonsense is for little people like us.
-
-
46
March 14, 2012 at 16:08 -
The thing which has been bugging me on this is that the requirements are lower than for a “domestically-generated” arrest warrant. Someone in the UK is actually treated worse under this system than under the usual system. Surely there is some recourse under one of the many “equal treatment” provisions?
-
47
March 14, 2012 at 16:46 -
There is only one solution. It is clear that the Portugese authorities will, sadly, have to despatch Mr Jörling.
-
50
March 14, 2012 at 23:11 -
I’m no expert in these things, but wasn’t there a clause somewhere, buried deep within one of the Treaties (Maastricht, Rome, Lisbon – goodness knows which one) which states, effectively, that the EU, its various bodies and officers have rendered themselves immune from any prosecution or claims of compensation for anything they do when they are “carrying out the business of the EU?” I don’t know if this would qualify for immunity under such a ruling, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised to discover that, because they were using a European Arrest Warrent (presumably set up and organised by the grandees of the EU) then that counts as “EU business.” Hope I’m wrong, but …
-
51
March 15, 2012 at 12:35 -
*If The Portuguese Judiciary issued this warrant then surely they are responsible and at worst can be sued in The Court of Human Rights, years though it might take.*
Wouldn’t you have to go to Portugal to sue them?
And face yet another “mistaken” arrest.
-
52
March 15, 2012 at 13:33 -
I emailed the Jeremy Vine show today about this matter… apposite, as the subject was up for discussion. Waiting to hear from them.
-
55
March 19, 2012 at 16:15 -
Any further ‘up-dates’ , Anna?
-
56
March 19, 2012 at 16:19 -
Graham’s next court date is the 28th March – I will have an update on line in the afternoon, God willing.
I can’t say more than that at the moment.-
57
March 20, 2012 at 07:56 -
Thanks, Anna.
For information – BBC Radio Four – “Today” programme, Tuesday 20 March, at approx 07:05 (UK time) had a short item setting out the basics of the ‘case’- original ‘acquittal’ – that allegation was ‘Attempted murder’ – and that it wasn’t clear if warrant was issued because of ‘additional evidence’ or a ‘mistake’ .
Programme is usually available “to listen again” on BBC website shortly after transmission ends, for 7 days.
-
58
March 20, 2012 at 11:14 -
I’m also waiting for the Victoria Derbyshire interview from this morning to appear on iplayer so I can give you a link to it.
-
59
March 20, 2012 at 13:47 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01dhjqx/Victoria_Derbyshire_20_03_2012/
six minutes in and 1:39 in.
-
60
March 20, 2012 at 15:32 -
Apologies for trying to be helpful.
-
-
-
-
-
61
March 20, 2012 at 08:16 -
Direct quotes from (text) item at –
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-17440916
\\
Briton Graham Mitchell faces Portugal extradition
By Danny Shaw
Home affairs correspondent, BBC News
A man from Kent says his world has been “turned upside down” after being told he faces extradition for a crime he thought he had been acquitted of 17 years ago.
Graham Mitchell, 49, a photographer, was arrested this month by British police, acting for the Portuguese authorities, on a European Arrest Warrant (EAW).
They want him to stand trial for attempting to murder a German tourist during a holiday in the Algarve.
Mr Mitchell told BBC News, in his first interview since his arrest, that he believed the Portuguese had made an “administrative blunder”.
\\
A TV crew from BBC One’s Panorama programme was covering the case at the time and filmed the court proceedings.
The footage clearly shows that the judge dismissed the case against the two Britons. They are shown smiling and embracing before leaving the courtroom.
\\ -
62
March 20, 2012 at 15:39
Comments on this entry are closed.
Previous post: Portuguese Men O Law
Next post: Now for something completely different…
{ 62 comments }