The WORLD is getting Smaller.

Euro-police 'can chase British suspects'
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 21/11/2002)


Foreign police will be allowed to operate on British soil for the first time under legislation published yesterday.

French or German police and customs teams in "hot pursuit" of a criminal will be allowed to continue their surveillance operations before seeking support from local officers.

The arrangements, brought in under the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, published yesterday, will allow British police the same rights in other European Union countries. The one exception will be Britain's only common border with another EU member: that between Britain and Ireland.

Ireland - which, like Britain, is not a full member of the Schengen open-borders agreement in Europe - has not opted into the new provision.

Although Britain had pressed Ireland to follow suit, the Government said it was happy with the existing arrangements operating along the border between Britain and Ireland. Hot pursuit across the Spanish border into Gibraltar will also not be allowed since the Rock is excluded from Schengen.

Lord Filkin, Home Office minister, said the foreign police officers entering the UK would not be allowed to carry weapons, though no specific provision is made in the Bill to prevent this.

The move surprised many observers because ministers had indicated that foreign police officers would not be allowed to operate in Britain.

Oliver Letwin, shadow home secretary, said: "This is very worrying. It is exactly what the Government said it would not do."

He said the move went "hand in hand" with last week's Bill to introduce the European Arrest Warrant.

"This makes it possible for people to be arrested in Britain for actions which are not crimes here, and to be faced with the need to prove their innocence in a foreign land," he said. "We will fight these threats to our basic liberties all the way."

However, ministers denied that police will have arrest powers and under the Bill they will be allowed to carry out surveillance only for a maximum of five hours. After that time they should either be joined by local police or should stop the operation.

Lord Filkin, however, conceded that there would be no way of knowing how long the police had been in the country and it would be necessary to rely on other forces observing the rules. He said in the vast majority of cases where a foreign police force wanted to follow a criminal to Britain they would have time to contact police in Britain to set up a joint operation.

But in urgent circumstances where this is not possible - perhaps when the pursuit is through the Channel Tunnel by Eurostar - the foreign officers will be able to operate alone.

During their time in Britain they will not have to obtain judicial permission to carry out surveillance, something their British counterparts would need to get.

The Bill says a foreign officer should be "treated as if he were acting as a constable in the execution of his duty" during the five-hour period, granting him the same protections against assault and other offences as police in the UK.

Lord Filkin said the arrangement worked both ways. British police tracking a suspect to Dover would be able to follow them to Calais and continue the surveillance operation.

"We don't expect this to happen very often in Britain," he said. "Our geography will usually mean that a foreign police force that is tracking someone coming to Britain would have plenty of time to ring through and alert the British police and so have in place a joint intelligence team led by a British police force."

The Bill will also allow for British citizens who commit terrorist attacks anywhere in the world to face prosecution in British courts, rather than in the country where the incident took place. Acts of terrorism committed abroad against British residents will also be triable in a British court.

Under these provisions, anyone who committed an act of terrorism anywhere in the world against British diplomatic premises, including attacks on staff in their cars, will be triable in British courts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/11/21/neucop21.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/11/21/ixnewstop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=64850

 

As this doesn't relate in any way to computer/Inenternet privacy, I must move this post to Ten-Forward.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=5059
____________________

Thanks John,

Move if you must..but in fact this was the category that received this post ....

"privacy software and issues"

and this was the subclass...

"privacy general
discuss general privacy related issues"


There are many threads in that area that do not fit you statement ...but I will admit the definition of privacy is changing for many.

 

Primrose,

I didn't mean to offend. I just went back and read the article you posted. I honestly don't see it as a privacy issue, but as part of the ongoing dispute regarding the European Union and those in the UK who are resisting. And maybe rightly so! I see it as a law enforcement issue and your position on UK independence.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by, "the definition of privacy is changing for many." To me, privacy issues are pretty cut 'n dried. Whether they relate to computing and the Internet is not always cut n' dried, but that comment baffled me somewhat.

I DO need to clarify something though. Clearly in "Privacy General" you can discuss privacy issues that don't necessarily have to do with the Internet. However, political issues must have a tie-in to computing and the Internet. Your posted article was an issue that, again, was political without being related to computer security/privacy. It is a decision made by Paul that none of the forums get overtly political so this doesn't become a board for the discussion of politics -- unless it relates to issues of Internet security/privacy (like the Homeland Security Act in the USA or encryption laws in the UK). I am abiding by Paul's decision on that and I know that his position on that is firm. AND.... it is called -- "WILDERS".....

I hope you understand,
John
Luv2BSecure

 

Cheers John,
You must get over that "I didn't mean to offend".

My post above reference the move for the post not the content or its acceptance.. except in the very norrow sense of your "rider"reason to move..."As this doesn't relate in any way to computer/Inenternet privacy, I must move this post to Ten-Forward."

Which was very confusing...

But now you have clarified that with....

"I DO need to clarify something though. Clearly in "Privacy General" you can discuss privacy issues that don't necessarily have to do with the Internet. "

You and I surely must have a different definition of "political"..I think you mean "politics"..you know that finger pointing kind of thingie. ;-)


I found this very interesting in that article...
"This makes it possible for people to be arrested in Britain for actions which are not crimes here, and to be faced with the need to prove their innocence in a foreign land," he said. "We will fight these threats to our basic liberties all the way."

However, ministers denied that police will have arrest powers and under the Bill they will be allowed to carry out surveillance only for a maximum of five hours. After that time they should either be joined by local police or should stop the operation."....


"During their time in Britain they will not have to obtain judicial permission to carry out surveillance, something their British counterparts would need to get.

The Bill says a foreign officer should be "treated as if he were acting as a constable in the execution of his duty" during the five-hour period, granting him the same protections against assault and other offences as police in the UK."


That is not political John...and if you spoke to Oliver Letwin..I think He would have alot to tell you about privacy.


But what the heck..five hours goes fast...and I doubt they will be packing a laptop for the hot pursuit.

Now might you be buying turkey or ham this Thanksgiving.

Smiles,

John

 

Hello Paul,


I thought the real issue was covered ;-)

( a bird in hand is worth more than a pig in the poke )

.... along with the post move and the reason..but alas the reason was changed and qualified so now it does make sense.

The posts in that section DO NOT have to pertain to the INTERNET....it was just that "don't necessarily" I was waiting to see in print.

I love qualifier.... and dressing.

Cheers,
John

( the other one)