EU told: Fix the European Arrest Warrant before entrenching trials in absentia

January 25 2008

Justice campaigners Fair Trials International have called on EU Member-States to fix the flawed European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system before further eroding defendants’ rights by extending recognition of trials in absentia.

At an informal meeting of EU Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs, which began in Brdo yesterday, the Slovenian Presidency will launch a new proposal to harmonise recognition of trials in absentia across the EU.

Trials in absentia currently occur in some EU member states, where a criminal trial will be allowed to proceed even though the defendant is not present to argue his or her case.

Under the proposal, judges across the EU will be able to refuse the extradition of an individual tried and convicted in absentia unless a re-trial can be held. Trials in absentia are not usually permitted in the UK, although the UK is supporting the proposal.

Head of Research and Campaigns at Fair Trials International, Amanda Cumberland, criticised the proposal as being an inadequate and inappropriate response to the problem of absent defendants:

“This measure is an attempt to paper over the very deep cracks in the EAW. One of the benefits of the EAW should have been a reduction in the number of trials in absentia, by creating a straightforward system of extradition across the EU. If the EAW was working properly, trials in absentia would be less prevalent, and this measure would not be necessary.

“There can be many reasons why a defendant is not present at trial. For example, cross-border notification procedures are frequently deficient or defendants may have well-founded fears of mistreatment or persecution. This proposal does nothing to address these issues.

“Instead it proposes a system of inadequate safeguards following post-sentencing extradition, such as a right to request a re-trial. We know such re-trials can lack substance and merely act to legitimise previous court action.

“Reasons for non-attendance at trial should be dealt with when the original extradition request is made, not left until after a trial in absentia has been held and a sentence handed down. It is in all parties’ interests – defendants, victims of crimes and law enforcement agencies – that criminal charges are dealt with properly – and this means promptly.

“While allowing refusal of extradition following a trial in absentia is important, it is only a short-term fix which ignores the deeper problem in the administration of cross-border justice in the EU caused by the flawed EAW,” concluded Ms Cumberland.

For comment, contact Amanda Cumberland on 020 7762 6400 or