War crimes arrest warrant law changes

15 September 2011 by

Welcome back

As has been long-heralded, the law on universal jurisdiction changed today. The change is contained in the new Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act and means that although anyone can initiate war crimes proceedings, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required before an arrest warrant is issued. The Justice Minister Ken Clarke said:

We are clear about our international obligations and these new changes to existing law will ensure the balance is struck between ensuring those who are accused of such heinous crimes do not escape justice and that universal jurisdiction cases are only proceeded with on the basis of solid evidence that is likely to lead to a successful prosecution.


The proposals have been controversial. Under the old law a person could be brought to trial and punished in any place in the United Kingdom as if the offence had been committed in the United Kingdom. and a private individual could apply to the magistrates for an arrest warrant. The consent of the Attorney General was required to proceed with a prosecution but previously this consent did not have to be obtained before a warrant of arrest is issued. The MoJ say that the evidence required for such a warrant is less onerous than would be needed than in an ordinary prosecution:

The court must simply be shown some information that an offence has been committed by the accused, and it does not need to decide that there is a realistic prospect of conviction.

However, a warrant will not be issued unless the consent of the Direction of Public Prosecutions has been obtained: see s.151 of the Bill (the Act is not online yet as far as I can tell). It is not clear what test the DPP will apply to decide whether to give his consent. War crimes legislation was initially passed following the Second World War when it was considered that certain crimes are so serious that they should not go unprosecuted, and that therefore other states should take responsibility for prosecuting them. The MoJ argue that the current system is open to abuse by people trying to obtain arrest warrants for grave crimes on the basis of flimsy evidence, usually to make a political statement or to cause embarrassment. This has led to arrest warrants being issued for high-profile foreign politicians such as Tzipi Livni (An Israeli politician) for private prosecution for war crimes, even where there is a high chance that the Attorney General’s consent to prosecution would not be forthcoming. The Pope was even threatened. They can come back now without too much fear of being arrested.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more

4 comments


  1. looking on says:

    It is a sad day when the UK welcomes back war criminals…. It is strange that we now will look to the new governments forming under the Arab Spring for justice and not to the UK, Europe or the US. Maybe a new world order is for the best after all.

  2. Thomas Williams says:

    What of Tony Blair?

    1. FatherDougal says:

      What of him?

  3. FatherDougal says:

    This makes good sense to me. The threat of these private applications were more about political statements than punishing potential war criminals.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: