Supplementary letter from Stephen Jakobi
OBE
The opportunity given to witnesses before your
committee to check the evidence given in session is also an opportunity
to reflect on the nature and quality of the evidence.
21 MARCH 2007
The mantra of Fair Trials Abroad that I have
always sought to follow was articulated in a decision of the European
Court of human rights.
The European Convention on human rights is
intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory,
but rights that are practical and effective[21]
I am concerned that whilst the principal behind
Eurobail, that of equal treatment of citizens before courts within
the European space, must be preserved practicality and effectiveness
decree, as a number of members of the committee observed, that
a compromise should be reached if possible.
It seems to me that there are two possible grounds
for refusal by the issuing state to grant provisional liberty
that should be explored.
SERIOUSNESS OF
THE OFFENCE
You pointed out to me that in the UK all offences
are bailable, including murder. However, bail is rarely granted
in cases of murder, as opposed to lesser charges of homicide.
This also applies to other cases of violence against the person
particularly sexual-offences involving children and major drug
charges involving principals. There must be a number of "common
ground" offences, which could be excluded from the workings
of Europe bail. This would reconcile public opinion in member
states to what on the face of it is a radical measure.
SPEEDY TRIAL
I have already given evidence to the effect
that if a trial is to take place in the near future it is impractical
to apply Europe bail principles.
Of course the test "the near future. "
is in any event the opinion of the tribunal concerned taken judicially.
But what can be done is to choose a relatively lengthy time limit.
Initially, say, three months. This would reduce the numbers involved,
but provide a cure for the worst cases: citizens who would be
on remand for many months, if not years, otherwise.
This lengthy time limit could be treated as
a confidence building measure, and provision be made for lowering
the time limit progressively in due course.
Further research and consultation would be required
on behalf of the Commission to work out the effect in practice,
of either or both of these suggestions. As has already been pointed
out, there will be plenty of time to explore these avenues.
29 March 2007
21 Artico judgment 1980. Back
| 
