A leading law academic from Northumbria University has
advised members of the House of Lords that the risks of cross-border crime in the
UK would not diminish as a result of Brexit
Professor Tim J Wilson, from Northumbria Law School, also
said the Government was right to prioritise the importance of UK criminal
justice cooperation with EU member states and institutions.
A member of the Northumbria Centre for Evidence and Criminal
Justice Studies (NCECJS), Professor Wilson was giving oral evidence on 21st March to the Home
Affairs Sub-Committee of the Lords European Union Select Committee. This was the
second event in the Committee’s inquiry into the proposed UK-EU Security Treaty.
The inquiry had begun with oral evidence by Rob Wainwright, the Head of Europol.
Professor Wilson gave evidence with two other academics, Dr
Helena Farrand-Carrapico, the Co- Director of Aston University’s Centre for
Europe, and Professor Anthony Glees, the Director of Buckingham University’s
Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies. Their session can be viewed here. All three stressed the importance of the UK having common data protection
standards with the EU after Brexit, the pivotal role of fundamental human
rights to regulate such cooperation and the significance of the Government’s
more positive stance about the UK’s future relationship with the Court of
Justice of the European Union.
Professor Wilson supported the Government’s conclusion that
“it is in the clear interest of all citizens that the UK and the EU sustain the
closest possible cooperation in tackling terrorism, organised crime and other
threats to security now and into the future.” He suggested that such
cooperation needed to be wide ranging and would hopefully include a treaty between the UK and the EU
that would allow continued access to criminal justice data sharing and judicial
measures such as extradition through the use of the European Arrest Warrant
(EAW).
Professor Wilson suggested that the structure of such
cooperation should be fourfold. Speaking to the committee, he advised that it
should offer a wide range of protection to citizens, residents and visitors in
this country and be fully reciprocal with the EU and, hopefully the Schengen
Area, chiefly Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, to the benefit of people in those
countries, including UK citizens when working, travelling or living there. It
should cover criminal justice in the broadest sense, including criminal
offending relating to food, transport and building safety, and environmental protection.
It should prevent discriminatory punitiveness (e.g. British citizens convicted
abroad for lesser offences should be able to serve non-custodial sentences here
and prisoners should continue to be eligible, for rehabilitative purposes to be
in custody abroad near to their family home).
Professor Wilson suggested that cooperation should include a
comprehensive and flexible arrangement that would be readily adapted to
changing social and economic circumstances, and take advantage of new
developments in science and technology that could effectively help to protect
individuals, communities and UK economic interests against criminal harm.
He also suggested that there might be a need for judicial
cooperation beyond traditional criminal justice. Already the exchange of
judicial records of criminal convictions was important for safeguarding, under
the arrangements put in place following the Soham murders, to protect children
and vulnerable adults. There might also be a role for family courts. He
reminded the Committee that In England a non-molestation order made by a family
court might need to be enforced by a criminal court. Sometimes, with many
people travelling between jurisdictions, effective and speedy protection might
need judicial cooperation with the courts of EU member states to ensure
compliance with an order made by an English court.
His reference to “English court” was a prompt for mentioning
the importance of the direct involvement of Edinburgh (both governmental and
professional institutions) within the UK preparations for the treaty
negotiations.
Asked for suggestions about how UK-EU cooperation might be
improved under the proposed treaty he suggested that previous opt outs,
especially on legal aid and non-custodial penalties should be reversed, and that
UK forensic scientists should receive increased funding so that this country
could participate in major European research projects.
All three witnesses recognised that negotiating a treaty
would be constitutionally and politically difficult for the UK and EU member
states and institutions. Professor Wilson, drawing on a suggestion he made when
giving oral evidence at a related inquiry by the Commons Justice Committee last
year, suggested that the existing laws allowing criminal justice cooperation
would need to remain effective beyond the 21 month Brexit implementation period
(ending in December 2020), for a further and specific legal cooperation transition
period until the new treaty arrangements could be in place.
