The Association of Chief Police Officers - Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Jean-Claude Piris, former Legal Counsel of the European Council and of the EU Council –Written evidence ................................................................................................................................... 200The Police Foundation –Written evidence ...................................................................................... 204Police Service of Northern Ireland –Written evidence ................................................................ 211Scottish Government –Written evidence ........................................................................................ 239UK Government – Written evidence ............................................................................................... 240United Kingdom Independence Party –Written evidence ............................................................ 256
David Anderson QC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation –Written evidenceDavid Anderson QC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation–Written evidenceMy interest in the opt-out decision1. The principal statutory functions of the Independent Reviewer are to review theoperation of UK anti-terrorism legislation and to produce three annual reports whichare submitted to the Home Secretary (or in one case the Treasury) and laid beforeParliament. I took over the role from Lord Carlile in 2011, and combine it withpractice as a Q.C. from London Chambers. For some 25 years I have specialised incases involving European Law. I have also taught EU law at King’s College London,where I remain a Visiting Professor, and sit as a Recorder of the Crown Court.2. I cannot improve on the account of the legal background to the opt-out decision thatis given by Hinarejos, Spencer and Peers in the CELS Working Paper of September2012, with which the Committee will be familiar. Nor do I enter into the politicaldebate as to the desirability or otherwise of repatriating powers from the EU. Myconcerns relating to this topic are with the legal and operational aspects of the fightagainst terrorism. I expect to comment in my Terrorism Acts report of summer2013 on whether there is a risk that the exercise of the opt-out could impede theeffectiveness of that fight.3. Any such comments will be informed by the investigation and conclusions of thisCommittee. I do not seek to replicate or pre-empt in any way the Committee’swork. In order to inform myself more fully as to the issues, I have howeverdiscussed the possible implications of the opt-out for counter-terrorism with police,agencies and OSCT. I have also had helpful discussions in Brussels with the EUCounter-Terrorism Co-ordinator (Gilles de Kerkhove), a member of the cabinet ofCommissioner Malmström, senior officials of the Commission and Council and MEPsfrom each of the major UK parties, and in The Hague with representatives ofEurojust and Europol.4. Those discussions were confidential, and are unlikely in any event to have rangedbeyond the scope of evidence that this Committee will itself receive at first handfrom similar sources. Nonetheless, and in case it is of value to the Committee, I setout for what it may be worth some of the initial impressions that I have formed.The UK’s leading role in EU counter-terrorism law and practice5. I have been struck by the extent to which – contrary to the tendency of the UKmedia to depict the UK as a marginalised influence in European affairs – the UK isseen within the EU as a key player in the field of police and criminal justice,specifically (though not exclusively) where anti-terrorism is concerned.6. For example:(a) The mandatory requirements concerning jurisdiction and terrorist offences in2002/475/JHA, as amended by 2008/919/JHA, have the effect of requiring all1
Page 1: EUROPEAN UNION COMMITTEEJUSTICE, IN
Page 5 and 6: David Anderson QC, Independent Revi
Page 7 and 8: Association of Chief Police Officer
Page 39 and 40: Bar Council -Written evidence7. Emp
Page 41 and 42: Bar Council -Written evidence21. Al
Page 43 and 44: Bar Council -Written evidencedissem
Page 45 and 46: Bar Council -Written evidenceQuesti
Page 47 and 48: Bar Council -Written evidenceQuesti
Page 49 and 50: Bar Council -Written evidenceWould
Page 51 and 52: Bar Council -Written evidencejustic
Page 53 and 54:
Court of Justice of the European Un
Page 55 and 56:
Court of Justice of the European Un
Page 57 and 58:
Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal
Page 59 and 60:
Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal
Page 61 and 62:
Europol - Written evidenceEuropol -
Page 63 and 64:
Europol - Written evidenceIn Europo
Page 65 and 66:
Europol - Written evidencefact that
Page 67 and 68:
Europol - Written evidencefundament
Page 69 and 70:
Europol - Written evidenceANNEX 1:
Page 71 and 72:
Faculty of Advocates - Written evid
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Fair Trials International -Written
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Martin Howe QC - Written evidence"I
Page 95 and 96:
Martin Howe QC - Written evidencein
Page 97 and 98:
William Hughes, former Director Gen
Page 99 and 100:
William Hughes, former Director Gen
Page 101 and 102:
JUSTICE - Written evidenceassets or
Page 103 and 104:
JUSTICE - Written evidence13. There
Page 105 and 106:
JUSTICE - Written evidence21. Previ
Page 107 and 108:
JUSTICE - Written evidenceother - i
Page 109 and 110:
JUSTICE - Written evidencemaintenan
Page 111 and 112:
Justice Across Borders -Written evi
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Mike Kennedy, former President of E
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Lynda Lacy -Written evidencebe to p
Page 169 and 170:
Lynda Lacy -Written evidencecivil s
Page 171 and 172:
Lynda Lacy -Written evidenceidealis
Page 173 and 174:
Law Society of England and Wales -
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Law Society of Scotland -Written ev
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Liberal Democrat UK MEP Group -Writ
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Dr Maria O’Neill, University of A
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Jean-Claude Piris, former Legal Cou
Page 205 and 206:
Jean-Claude Piris, former Legal Cou
Page 207 and 208:
The Police Foundation -Written evid
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Police Service of Northern Ireland
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Scottish Government -Written eviden
Page 243 and 244:
UK Government - Written evidence•
Page 245 and 246:
UK Government - Written evidenceWe
Page 247 and 248:
UK Government - Written evidenceAs
Page 249 and 250:
UK Government - Written evidence6.
Page 251 and 252:
UK Government - Written evidenceECR
Page 253 and 254:
UK Government - Written evidenceIt
Page 255 and 256:
UK Government - Written evidence11.
Page 257 and 258:
UK Government - Written evidenceCon
Page 259 and 260:
United Kingdom Independence Party -
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
show all

The Association of Chief Police Officers - Parliament

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?