Portuguese Men O Law
The long tentacles of the Portuguese Judiciary have reached out and wrapped themselves around another Briton. This time it is not just a name that we read in the papers, it is one of our own, a fellow blogger, indeed one of my fellow authors on this site.
20 years ago, Graham was young, free and single. He took a few days break from work, and went fishing with his friend. Sunshine, a few cold beers, and obliging fish – many of you will have done the same thing, but not with such dire consequences.
They flew off to the Algarve, full of banter and good cheer. So did a young German tourist, Andre Jorling. They stayed at camp sites some 15 miles apart. They did not know each other. Andre Jorling was involved in a skirmish during which he fell or was pushed over a concrete wall and broke his back. He has been paralysed ever since. The entire affair has been a tragedy for him.
Unfortunately for Graham and his friend Warren, a security guard was of the opinion that the two of them were the last people he had seen in that vicinity and he was of the opinion that one or both of them had pushed Andre. Andre wasn’t given the opportunity to identify them, either from photographs or in person.
Graham and Warren were charged with homicidio naoforma tenda, the nearest equivalent of which in British law is unlawful wounding /inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of the OAPA. To be convicted of this offence, the defendant must be proved to have committed really serious harm, or wounded another person (for example by stabbing with a knife). However, the damage must be intended. It is a very serious offence, in the UK as in Portugal. Bail is unlikely to be given, and a long prison sentence is normal when the case is finally heard at the Crown Court, so what followed for Graham and Warren would have been roughly the same in either country. However, it is hard to believe that in Britain there are any circumstances which would have resulted in Graham having a pistol thrust into his mouth by an officer involved in his arrest.
Graham and Warren were remanded to Faro prison, and there they stayed for 54 weeks, a year and two weeks. When the case finally came to trial, it was revealed that the victim had never identified either man, indeed, had given a description of his assailants which bore no relation to Graham or Warren; when he was given the opportunity to identify them in court, he pointed out two completely different individuals.
Graham and Warren were acquitted of the offence. It is important to reiterate that they were not cleared by some technicality of having been involved in the incident but, perhaps, not having the necessary intent to be found guilty – they were acquitted because there was no evidence that they had been in any way part of the incident.
You might think that having finally got out of a foreign jail after a year, having had a pistol thrust in his mouth, and his life turned upside down, that they might have jumped on the next plane back to Blighty. They didn’t, they had become something of a cause célèbre with the British media by then, who had been making a Panorama documentary of the trial and who kindly bankrolled a weeks rest and recuperation – and a little fishing – before they flew home. They had no ties, they were young free and single!
When they did return to England, it was to their previous home, and to try to pick up the pieces of their life. Graham became a press photographer, specialising in covering demonstrations. He is a big man, an ex Scots Guardsman and well able to take care of himself. He quite enjoys the jostle and commotion of the average EDL demonstration or the Dale Farm saga, and comes away with some excellent photographs. Readers here have been lucky enough to read his first hand accounts of what actually transpires, rather than viewing it through the Main Stream Media prism.
Warren’s parents emigrated to America, and so far, I have only been able to track Warren to Australia, whether he is still there or not, I do not know. Certainly the two friends lost contact some 17 years ago.
Graham married five years ago, and last Tuesday night there was a knock at his door, as he sat eating dinner with his wife. A posse of burly policemen. They had with them a European Arrest Warrant, apparently for the arrest of one large ex-Scots Guardsman wanted for murder. An international fugitive. (The warrant had arrived care of SOCA – the serious crimes squad) They were as sensitive as is quite probably appropriate under the circumstances. Which is not very. Who can blame them? It was dark, seven o’clock at night, and they had a job to do. Without further explanation – for they had no other information – they carted Graham off to Canterbury police station.
Eventually they produced a duty solicitor; Graham didn’t have one of his own, you tend not to do so when you are a law abiding member of the public. She agreed to appear on Graham’s behalf at Westminster Magistrates Court the next morning. Graham spent a sleepless night in the police cells, he was baffled; why would he be being charged with murder 20 years after he had been acquitted of Grievous Bodily Harm? Had Andre Jorling died? Was he even the right Graham Mitchell? He had spent 20 years trying to forget the details of what had occurred, now he was desperately trying to remember everything from the Process number of the Charge to the Portuguese attorney who had defended him. The police knew nothing beyond the fact that he was allegedly a fugitive murderer that they were charged with keeping in custody.
The next day in court there were more surprises. 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. It merely said he was wanted for ‘first degree murder’ – an American term in itself, meaningless under British Law. The Magistrate gave the duty solicitor time during the day to see if she could get any more information – by the end of the day the only reply she had had from the Portuguese was that it would take them three weeks to come up with more information! The Magistrate had no choice other than to remand Graham in custody once more.
This time he was taken to Wandsworth prison. He was labelled an international fugitive, and a man wanted for murder, both of which automatically made him a category ‘A’ prisoner. He spent the night on the wing reserved for the ‘hard nuts’ and the Al Qaeda mob who have taken up semi-permanent residence on that wing. He may be a Scotsman and an ex-guardsman, but even he was being mentally affected by all this. His wife was beside herself.
Fortunately, he and his wife have a large and supportive family. They managed to arrange bail for him, his in-laws standing surety; his passport has been surrendered and he has to report daily to Canterbury police station. They have never moved far from the network of streets where he lived when he was first arrested, he has always been registered on the electoral roll, had utility bills in his name, bank accounts, paid his tax and insurance – whatever was the reason behind this warrant, he could not understand why it had taken the Portuguese authorities 20 years to find him if they had wanted him back. They had never been in communication with him.
I have spent the past few days, with the aid of a more than helpful Portuguese friend, searching the database for the Court of Appeal in Lisbon. She has also searched all the Portuguese media. It occurred to me that perhaps Graham’s acquittal had been appealed and subsequently overturned – it is not unknown under Civil Law. All I can say is that unless there is a spelling mistake on the database, there is no record of any appeal either in the name of Graham Mitchell or his friend Warren Tozer. Nothing
Perhaps Andre Jorling had died and there was some way in which the charge could be reinvigorated? The only mention of his name comes in the Portuguese media at the time of the original case, or in translated versions of what has been printed in Britain over the past few days, and one lone report in a German paper back in 1994. If the man had died you would expect someone somewhere to have taken an interest? Even if Jorling had subsequently died, why re-open the case against a man who was proven to have had nothing to do with the incident?
There is no doubt that Graham Mitchell was acquitted, and under the circumstances I have described – I was cautious enough to have checked that out too, perhaps he had just been released on bail and had misunderstood? But as I said, there was a Panorama team following the trial and the Daily Mail covering it on the ground as well.
Has Warren Tozer been traced and arrested too? No one knows. Another ludicrous aspect of the entire affair – for they were jointly charged, there could not be a retrial of just half of the suspected perpetrators.
As an indication of what may be facing Graham now, the Portuguese national João Vale e Azevedo has been facing a string of charges loosely related to his time as chairman of the Benfica football club. I say loosely because the complexity of the charges and counter charges would make your head spin. HERE if you feel like tackling the only ‘safe’ version written in English rather than Babelfish translations. Football is more than just the ‘glorious game’ in Portugal, it has religious and political status. João is a high flying jurist and international lawyer, a Portuguese national who totally understands his own legal system. He has spent several years in prison, being acquitted of some charges only to be re-arrested and put back in prison on new ones within minutes – and has spent the past five years in London fighting a European Arrest Warrant designed to bring him back into the Portuguese judicial system. If he can’t successfully navigate the Portuguese legal system, it doesn’t bode well for Graham sorting this out quickly.
All the European Arrest Warrant has to say is that you are wanted in ‘x’ country on ‘y’ charge – no evidence has to be laid before the UK courts. Fortunately for Graham the charity Fair Trials International, who helped Graham during the original trial, have stepped in to help him again. He has to appear in court again tomorrow and we wish him luck.
Please show your support for Graham in the comments, and let him know that the blogging community won’t forget about him. My Portuguese blogging friend has already offered to do any translation work that he needs. What he needs most is his moral boosting and the knowledge that he won’t again languish forgotten in a foreign jail for a year.
March 21, 2012 at 02:25
-
As ridiculous now as it was 18 years old. Not in the UK anymore but if
there’s anything I can do to help, let me know Graham. Clare
- March 20, 2012 at 11:08
-
I notice that the Today program has picked up on this story – as usual a
week behind the blogosphere.
- March 20, 2012 at 07:17
-
I’m not privy to full facts of this case, but it seems interesting that
many have been praising the change in the double jeopardy law in recent
months. It is a little rich to assume the legal system in the UK is the only
valid one.
-
March 17, 2012 at 10:37
-
Speaking of Magna Carta, it would appear that she did die in vain.
- March 16, 2012 at 08:19
-
This is crazy – high time for the Extradition Laws to be goven a complete
overhaul.
- March
15, 2012 at 18:18
-
This is getting beyond belief. Our society gets more kafkaesque by the day.
Obscure and misunderstood infractions and minutae can land you in prison
like this, whilst beating someone and putting their windows through is
apparently unpunishable (this just happened to a friend of mine and I will be
blogging on it very shortly…).
- March 14, 2012 at 20:46
-
I am outraged by this story and by the principle of the European Arrest
Warrent in general. IF there is good reason to suspect someone of a crime in a
foreign country, then we should be prepared to extradite. But this doesn’t
mean handing over British citizens to the dubious justice systems of other
countries when they are required to produce NO evidence to support their
application.
We must fight the EAW because it breaks the British legal principle of
Habeas Corpus and the rights which were enshrined in Magna Carta not to be
imprisoned without evidence of wrongdoing.
Mr Mitchell must know that ordinary British people are aware of and are
supporting his cause. Please keep us informed on progress.
- March 14, 2012 at 15:16
-
We in the UK, well our Government, and Police Forces seem rather quick to
hand people over under an EAW agreement.
Shame we cannot get rid of suspected Terrorists quite so easily.
Good luck Graham.
-
March 14, 2012 at 18:55
-
The UK made no attempt to extradite Ms Dark at any stage.
-
March 14, 2012 at 20:58
-
Government – yes, police forces however don’t have a choice. The EAW
scheme itself is wrong. It assumes foreign courts and judicial systems are
as the same as ours when it comes to checks and balances, they aren’t.
-
March 14, 2012 at 22:59
-
checking wordpress
-
March 14, 2012 at 14:53
-
One point I hope will come to Graham’s aid, here, is just about the only
ground on which an EAW can be challenged — that an unreasonable passage of
time has elapsed since the original incident that gave rise to the eaw being
issued in the first place.
That is what rescued Deborah Dark, whose case was still more scandalous
than Graham’s. She was actually tried in France and *acquitted* on charges of
driving a car laden with illicit drugs. She went home rejoicing and thought
that was that.
But in her absence and without her knowledge, the prosecution appealed the
aquittal and won. An EAW was raised for her to return to France to serve a 6
year prison sentence. First Ms Dark knew was, on a trip to Spain 20 years
later, when she was arrested by Spanish customs.
Spain refused to extradite Ms Dark on grounds of the passage of time.
I fervently hope a similar judgement will rescue Graham in this case …
-
March 17, 2012 at 22:41
-
Unreasonable passage of time maybe, but the really important point is
that Graham was acquitted at an earlier trial. Article 50 of the EU Charter
on Fundamental Rights unambiguously stipulates against double jeopardy: “No
one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings
for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or
convicted within the Union in accordance with the law” (there is not even an
exception allowing for multiple prosecutions connected with the murder of
the sainted Stephen Lawrence).
It is hard to see how an EAW can be valid if it conflicts with one of the
most fundamental rules of EU law itself! There looks to be a promising case
for damages against the Potuguese and no British judge should touch this
with a bargepole.
-
March 20, 2012 at 17:01
-
Now that is really interesting. I tended to assume from the Deborah
Dark case (where there was acquittal, retrial in absentia and conviction)
that double jeopardy just didn’t apply to EAWs.
Clearly I was wrong.
Why did it take the French so long to drop its warrant against Ms
Dark?
And why was it raised in the first place?
- March 14, 2012 at 14:37
-
Graham,
Incredible. Julain Brazier MP maybe an option, I’d certainly consider using
the links to the Scots Guards, who have in the past even moved the likes of
Robert Mugabe to change their minds.
Just a reminder Portugal is our oldest ally. A nice point to make in any
letter to those who should help here.
Even worse after reading this article and thinking will I write to my MP?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9141284/The-DNA-of-Britons-could-be-passed-on-in-EU-data-sharing-scheme.html
- March 14, 2012 at 09:15
-
Graham,
Best of Luck.
I’ll be writing to my MP about this.
- March 14, 2012 at 08:51
-
As no evidence is required to issue a warrant would it not be prudent to
try and get warrants issued for say the prosecuting Portuguese lawyer, Judge
and anyone else that has put their name to this farce.
Use the Euro warrant system against itself.
-
March 14, 2012 at 08:29
-
This story, though by no means unique, is an outrage. Who now believes one
of the purposes of government is to protect its citizens? The politicians have
signed our rights and liberties away and placed us under the thrall of a
foreign power, and nobody has batted an eyelid. Graham deserves our active
support – there must be something we can do, not just for Graham but for all
future British citizens arrested and shipped off to some corner of a foreign
field… that is forever unjust.
Tarka I couldn’t have put it better myself. Graham our thoughts are with
you and your family. Take care.
- March 14, 2012 at 01:42
-
Your story,
Please do elaborate …
- March 14, 2012 at 01:00
-
/speechless
-
March 13, 2012 at 23:14
-
So much to get angry about, so little time . . . .
Keep us updated on
this please.
- March 13, 2012 at 22:26
-
You need to get your facts right – lots of your story is incorrect
- March 18, 2012 at 19:52
-
Explain why you believe this to be so, please. Citing case and details
wherever possible.
- March 13, 2012 at 22:26
-
Is there any way we can help?
-
March 13, 2012 at 22:02
-
This story, though by no means unique, is an outrage. Who now believes one
of the purposes of government is to protect its citizens? The politicians have
signed our rights and liberties away and placed us under the thrall of a
foreign power, and nobody has batted an eyelid. Graham deserves our active
support – there must be something we can do, not just for Graham but for all
future British citizens arrested and shipped off to some corner of a foreign
field… that is forever unjust.
- March 13, 2012 at 21:13
-
Article 8
Content and form of the European arrest warrant
1. The
European arrest warrant shall contain the following information set out in
accordance with the form contained in the Annex:
(a) the identity and
nationality of the requested person;
(b) the name, address, telephone and
fax numbers and e-mail address of the issuing judicial authority;
(c)
evidence of an enforceable judgment, an arrest warrant or any other
enforceable judicial decision having the same effect, coming within the scope
of Articles 1 and 2;
(d) the nature and legal classification of the
offence, particularly in respect of Article 2;
(e) a description of the
circumstances in which the offence was committed, including the time, place
and degree of participation in the offence by the requested person;
(f) the
penalty imposed, if there is a final judgment, or the prescribed scale of
penalties for the offence under the law of the issuing Member State;
(g) if
possible, other consequences of the offence.
Seems [e] has been completely lacking …
- March 18, 2012 at 19:15
-
If matters are as portrayed, then the warrant was incomplete, and should
not have been served or enforced.
(c) also appears to be significantly lacking
No wonder I’m considering giving up my UK (and subsequently EU)
citizenship. One might have little to hide, but who can say for certain they
have nothing to fear, especially from clerical error.
- March 13, 2012 at 20:26
-
‘Remember that the majority of eu civil law countries work on the basis
that unless it is decreed that something is permissible then you have to
assume it is not.’
Wrong, it’s the other way about: everything is permitted
unless specifically prohibited under the civil/criminal code.
- March 13, 2012 at 19:18
-
Welcome to the liberal paradise. The “European Ideal” produced this shit.
Wonder why the BBC is all over the US extraditions but has popped this one
into the memory hole?
-
March 13, 2012 at 18:26
-
I have tweeted this. Will all Tweeters please RT? This needs to go viral.
No need to follow me, unless you wish, just go to
https://twitter.com/#!/GhostOfWinston/
and click re-tweet
on the relevant tweet…”This is truly dreadful……”
- March 13, 2012 at 18:01
-
Quite ridiculous! Very best of luck, Graham.
I suppose it’s too much to ask that Hague might start saying ‘enough is
enough’ with the EAW?
- March 13, 2012 at 17:52
-
Elena ‘andcart March 13, 2012 at 14:58
Sad to say, I am not in the least
surprised. Best not to go to Portugal at all.
———–
Doesn’t help you
Elena. They can demand your extradition without ever having to provide
evidence for any assertion they make. Even if you could prove you’d never even
been to Portugal, you wouldn’t be given the opportunity to even say so. They
could literally make something up on the spur of the moment, and you’d be
handed over.
One question I still have about the EAW procedure: If someone from the UK
is extradited to another EU jurisdiction, on whatever pretext, could that
country then extradite the subject on to a third country outside the EU? For
example to a middle eastern or african dictatorship? The temptation would be
there for an EU country in desperate need of a sweet deal with say the
Iranians- offer to snare and then render up some British critic of the mullahs
regime, in return for an oil and gas deal. That would be particularly stinky,
but I’ve seen nothing to assure me it couldn’t happen.
-
March 13, 2012 at 19:10
-
Isn’t this what Julian Assange was fighting – extradition to Sweden on
rape “charges” and then being seamlessly rendered onto the US over Wikileaks
?
-
March 14, 2012 at 15:58
-
True, Monty. But at least you might have some chance of proving that you
have never been there. I have been there, which is why I know it’s lovely.
But I wouldn’t go again. And I could tell tales about The PJ that would make
your hair stand on end.
Yes, Ken Alexander, Julian Assange is a case in
point, especially since his “Crime” doesn’t appear to be a crime in
Britain.
And No, I don’t like the sound of him, but that isn’t the
point.
- March 13, 2012 at 16:23
-
I want to add to the support of Graham in his ridiculous predicament.
Surely his MP can get some sense out of the situation? The difference between
this and the recent US extradition requests is that in the US cases the
complaint was clear.
- March
13, 2012 at 16:03
-
Dear Lord! They bang on and on about human rights, have judges pass some
ludicrous decisions and yet do this without even a blink.
Can we please
just leave and end this farce?
-
March 13, 2012 at 15:50
-
Anna, unless I have missed owt in the post, no mention of where Graham
lives so presumably Canterbury?
Has his MP been contacted? If Canterbury the it is Julian Brazier,
Tory.
Anyway, best of luck to him – let us hope it is all an administrative
error.
- March 13, 2012 at 15:45
-
What a travesty! Surely the magistrate/judge could have dismissed the
warrant when told that the deceased was alive.
I can just imagine going in front of the Stipendiary at Greenwich
Magistrates Court with that load of crap. He’d have handed me my head on a
platter.
- March 13, 2012 at 16:22
-
March 13, 2012 at 14:58
-
Sad to say, I am not in the least surprised. Best not to go to Portugal at
all.
Such a pity because it is a lovely country, but The Police are often
not to be trusted.
- March 13, 2012 at 17:28
-
I’m afraid the police are not to be trusted in any country in the world.
It’s a fact of life we have to live with. As is oft quoted: “power
corrupts….etc”.
- March 14, 2012 at 15:48
-
The Portuguese Police are much more prone to picking on people without
any evidence, and then fitting them up. They have been doing it for years,
and without any assistance from Britain to Brits unfortunate enough to get
swept up in their system.
Until recently.
- March 13, 2012 at 14:56
-
This is sadly one of the absolutely ridiculous side effects of latching
Britain with its common law traditions to the eu with its civil law
traditions.
The rights of man enshrined under common law in the old uk have been
overwhelmed by the civil law approach where you are effectively guilty until
proven innocent.
Remember that the majority of eu civil law countries work on the basis that
unless it is decreed that something is permissible then you have to assume it
is not which is why they are all fcked up bureaucracies and why we were able
in the past to innovate and grow.
I cannot for the life of me work out why mps, especially Tory mps, have not
demanded an end to this disgraceful warrant law.
People like ken clarke who seem to put the intricacies of “law” above all
else should be told to start protecting our common law tradition and our
rights to protection as British nationals.
Perhaps graham should have obtained a Somali passport or similar and then
nobody would dare deport him…..
Good luck graham.
- March 14, 2012 at 13:06
-
XX Remember that the majority of eu civil law countries work on the basis
that unless it is decreed that something is permissible then you have to
assume it is not XX
Bollox!
It is logically IMPOSSIBLE to have such a legal system.
Or do you think we all get arrested here in Germany because we step of
onto the zebra crossing left foot first, when the law does not say we can do
that?
Grundgesetz. §2. The right to free personal expression. The right to
life, and fredom from bodily harm. (Jede kann tun und lassen was er will.
(Everyone can do and allow what they want)), in as far as the same rights of
other people are not harmed.
Only through a specific law, can these rights be shortened. (Art. 2 II 3
Grundgesetz, and Art. 104 GG zusätzliche rechtsstaatliche Garantien.) “These
laws state; “The freedom of the person can only be restricted as a result of
a formal law (making something illegal, is an example), and only under
strict adherence to the conditions laid down within that law.
The police
may not, except by court order, hold ANY person longer than 24 hours, and
MUST be taken before a court (Habeus Corpus), for the Judge to decide if the
person a) has a charge to answer, b) if the person can be held longer.
Does this sound like that full of pig shit “theory” that the Brits appear
to have over “unless it is decreed that something is permissible then you
have to assume it is not “?????
- March 13, 2012 at 14:54
-
Daily Mail – 8 March – says \\Miss Jenny Agnew, representing Mr Mitchell,
said: ‘We need clarification as to why the arrest warrant says first degree
murder when the victim is still alive.’
The case was adjourned to allow the
prosecutors time to explain the anomaly.\\
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2111879/Briton-faces-sent-prison-Portugal.html#ixzz1p0avc3Gi
- March 13, 2012 at 14:20
-
Just one thing to add to my previous comment: there are two nations
involved in this case. IF the Portuguese delivered an invalid EAW, WHY did the
U.K. react on it instead of requesting a formally correct and documented
request?
I am presently trying to read up to the 2002 EU decision [as I am sure Anna
and others will have done], but unfortunately am not progressing as fast I
would want to, as I’m watching the Leveson Inquiry at the same time
- March 13,
2012 at 14:03
-
Good Luck Graham.
- March 13, 2012 at 13:55
-
This is quite incredible. The media should be all over this. Isn’t this
*exactly* what we are told the ECHR is for, to stop tinpot judicial systems
riding rough-shod over basic established rights?
- March 13,
2012 at 13:54
-
A horrible thought has just occurred to me… this isn’t the photographer who
blogs at Mitchell Images (http://mitchell-images-blog.blogspot.com/), is it?
- March 13, 2012 at 14:39
-
I see what you’re getting at………very nasty.
Any connections between Lisbon and Damascus……..we need to be told.
The F.O. should get on to this – anything dodgy that can be substantiated
should mean that Britain should immediately repudiate the agreement.
Not that David ‘much sympathy for Tappin’ Cameron is a reliable bloke to
have when things cut up nasty.
- March 13, 2012 at 13:52
-
Good luck Graham
I shall not be holidaying in Portugal (or any other Euronazi zone) for
quite some time.
As S.A. said, if the EAW charge is murder, “where’s the body”?
-
March 13, 2012 at 13:49
-
A search on BBC news and the Guardina site for ‘Graham Mitchell’ and ‘Andre
Jorling’ returns precisely….ZERO results.
As Julia M notes, if the facts of the case were exactly the same but it was
an American warrant, I would full expect this to be a lead story.
I leave others to draw their conclusions…
- March 13,
2012 at 14:19
-
The ‘Mail’ has it, though. Dated March 8th.
- March 13,
2012 at 13:32
-
I wonder if this story will attract even half the media attention given to
a certain ‘autistic’ hacker or even the most recent businessman sting
operation?
Probably not, since the US isn’t the guilty party this time.
- March 13, 2012 at 13:43
-
Get Christopher Booker on it.
- March 13, 2012 at 13:29
-
I’m confident that the optimism expressed in some of the comments above is
entirely misplaced.
Face it, people (I address here the people of England), you now live in the
Union of European Socialist Republics and there is no chance whatever that
either of the Messrs. Heath – the First Lord of the Treasury and, what’s the
other one called, the First Butler of the Treasury ? – will intervene on
Mr. Mitchell’s behalf.
Nor am I convinced the comparison, as by M Barnes, with the works of Franz
Kafka is appropriate : I don’t think Kafka could have come up with
anything as bizarre as the European Union. The sooner the peoples of its
colonies – or, as the Reich prefers to be call them, member states – rise up
and deal with the Oberstgruppenführer as they should be dealt with, the
better. We make too little use of assassination these days.
The fact that Labour introduced this law is nothing to the
point : had Mr. Heath had anything remotely resembling a spine, the
European Arrest Warrant would have been invalid in the U.K. the day after his
kissing of hands. Heath out, I say !
ΠΞ
- March 13, 2012 at 13:21
-
Gildas; Didn’t H.C. get abolished under Blair?
Amfortas; Since the
police became politicised under NuLiebore they don’t give a f***k about
defending law abiding citizens. The only evidence they seem to investigate is
assumptions that turn a victim into a villain.
Spiral A; It seems that when
some faceless dick in Europe decides so, any rights an Englishman may have are
just swept aside.
Chatelaine; I hope you are right. Good luck to
Graham.
-
March 13, 2012 at 13:03
-
What happened to Habeas Corpus?!!!
- March 13, 2012 at 14:53
-
Eloped with Double Jeopardy.
That famous liberal lawyer, Michael Mansfield QC, was driving the Quatro
they shot off in. I hope he’s proud of himself.
I’d be cross with the Portuguese for trying to reopen an acquittal but I
don’t think we have much to boast about here.
-
March 13, 2012 at 13:01
-
Just a final thought that has occurred to me.
Proven foreign terrorists can’t be deported for trial in Jordan because
their human rights might be infringed…………but British citizens can be whisked
off to foreign lands on the basis of……..er………..no evidence whatsoever.
Amazing eh?
- March 14, 2012 at 12:28
-
XX but British citizens can be whisked off to foreign lands on the basis
of……..er………..XX
That, in theory, they have the same protetion regarding human rights in
the arresting country, (here Porugal), as they do anywhere else in the E.U.
(In this case Britain.)
It is part of the requirements for membership. Which makes it all the
more mysterious as to why Britain is pushing for Turkeys membership.
-
March 13, 2012 at 12:47
-
This case only goes to accentuate the unfairness and downright cruelty of
the European Arrest Warrant. The legislation was drawn up by the unelected and
faceless bureaucrats in Brussels who rely on an imperfect knowledge of the
various laws of the disparate countries that make up this Union. The way these
warrants are issued, without supporting evidence, guarantees of adequate legal
representation and proficient interpretation, smacks of the justice system of
the worst kind od Communist dictatorship.
- March 13, 2012 at 13:01
-
Exactly………….not only are many countries insufficiently competent and
moral to run with the same currency, but many don’t have proper systems of
justice either.
-
March 13, 2012 at 12:42
-
Er………….Murder?
Er…………..where’s the body?
This is not at all surprising, after all………..any government that is big
enough to give you all you want, is big enough to take all you have.
The EU is a fascist dictatorship.
- March 13, 2012 at 12:26
-
I cannot believe this!!!! It just doesn’t make any sense.
Good luck to Graham. I’m confident that there will be people,
organisations, more then presently already involved, who are be able to find a
way out of this rat hole situation … And also some who have the contacts and
the power to raise this with the European Commission itself.
- March 13, 2012 at 12:07
-
And there was I thinking the Portugese were nice folk. But wait… it was
British coppers that arrested him this time, on account of a bit of Portugese
paper. Have they not swore an oath to uphold our Common Law? Are they not
there to Serve and Protect British citizens? What has happened to Britain?
- March 13,
2012 at 13:30
-
You might well ask.
- March 13, 2012 at 15:19
-
It’s certainly an interesting article, especially given that it follows
one about great the police are…
- March
14, 2012 at 13:30
-
Good point.
- March
13, 2012 at 12:00
-
I’ve emailed over 100 of my contacts to pass on the message. If you’re not
sure what to send to your contacts please feel free to nick and plagerise my
email which is below.
Dear reader,
This is an email sent to all my contacts. I have your email address because
we have been in touch at some point in the past, maybe brief, maybe dim and
distant. My apologies if you have received this and no longer wish to keep in
touch with me, just let me know and I’ll remove your address from my contact
list.
So why have I written this email? Because Graham Mitchell, a fellow blogger
and press photographer has been arrested under the European Arrest Warrant for
a crime that he was acquitted of 20 years ago. He was not just found innocent
on some technicality, he was found totally innocent of the crime because the
victim identified other people as his attackers. However though he was free
after spending 54 weeks in prison (in a story covered by the Daily Mail at the
time) some 20 years later, the Portuguese authorities have found some reason
(which even his lawyer can’t fathom out) to re-arrest him. Due to the
Portuguese not filling out the EAW form properly he has been allowed bail, but
only after he spent a short time in Wandsworth prison as a category A
prisoner. He could be going to Portugal at any time, to spend weeks, possibly
months in prison while waiting for his case to wend it way through the
Portuguese legal system. All to be found not guilty again.
His story has been written about on https://www.annaraccoon.com/ where I urge you to go and read
it. If you feel as strongly as I do, please pass on the link to all your
contacts. Please tweet it and put it on your facebook wall as well.
The direct link to the story is https://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/portuguese-men-o-law/
If you’re wondering why Madeleine Mccann is in the URL above it is because
it involves the same police who investigated her case so brilliantly – not! So
you can see why Graham is very likely not to get a fair trail.
Jon
–
SBML – See more of my witterings on annaraccoon.com
- March 13, 2012 at 14:10
-
Hi, First of all, thank you so much for your help in highlighting my
plight. It is a great help to me and my family that people are taking the
time to help in whatever way they can.
However, can I just point out that the reason for me being granted bail
is not due to a mistake on the warrant as such. It is due to the judge
needing to confirm that I have indeed been acquitted of a similar charge in
the past. The Portuguese authorities needed more time to confirm this.
- March
13, 2012 at 14:18
-
I gues that answers my question…
- March 13, 2012 at 11:56
-
All the best.
Keep cool and have a good and influential Portuguese
lawyer.
Perhaps Panorama might investigate a follow up?
- March 14, 2012 at 16:41
-
JohnB, no chance, the B-BBC will stay away from that.
Good luck Graham.
-
March 13, 2012 at 11:42
-
This is apalling
I’m up for this one Anna…
G the M
- March 13, 2012 at 11:37
-
Kafka wasn’t a fiction writer at all was he? Good luck to you and yours
Graham.
- March 13, 2012 at 11:10
-
Typical of the stupid knee jerk laws passed by Labour. We are now subject
to the laws of countries whose laws we do not understand. Surely this is all a
misunderstanding.
Panorama, Daily Mail plus court documents showing the man was aquitted
should surely stand up even in a Portugese court.
Good Luck Graham.
-
March 14, 2012 at 20:54
-
Spot on.
I’ve loved reading Graham’s coverage of public order/disorder events on
his blog.
All the best Graham.
-
March 13, 2012 at 10:40
-
Good luck Graham.
With luck, the Keystone Kops that can’t find a missing
4 year old
will have just as much success finding an alleged murder victim
and the “case” will be dropped.
All the best to you and your family through this worrying time.
- March 13, 2012 at 10:39
-
“All the European Arrest Warrant has to say is that you are wanted in ‘x’
country on ‘y’ charge – no evidence has to be laid before the UK courts”
Holy Cow ! But of course the mother of parliaments, the elected members of
our sovereign parliament would never allow such a thing to be even
contemplated…..oh – wait …
- March 13, 2012 at 10:22
-
Do keep us updated on this. All I can say is. I’m gobsmacked.
Good luck Graham.
- March 13, 2012 at 12:44
-
Why are you ‘gobsmacked’?
This is all par for the EU course.
- March
13, 2012 at 13:28
-
I have to agree with SA. It’s an outrage and I’m disgusted, but I’m not
in any way surprised…
- March 13, 2012 at 17:59
-
Hear Hear! UK Government is reduced to the status of County Council
under the EU.
- March 13, 2012 at 21:42
-
Ridiculous and shameful.
(No doubt Ken Clarke will tell us “this does not happen”.)
{ 85 comments }