Wise Up Journal
23.03.2009
By Gabriel O’Hara

The British government through Westminster Magistrates Court are looking to have John Anthony Hill extradited to the UK, accused of mailing a DVD (with no letter) to a court, to face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment . The DVD was titled to the judge and to the “foreman of the jury”. I think most people would have faith that a court administrators would know whether to legally pass it on or not, which they did not pass on. The way it was sent makes it impossible to pervert the course of justice. John is also the producer and narrator of this documentary which basically shows footage from the BBC, ITV and some news articles by the New York Times and others.

The small remainder of John’s documentary that is not from main stream media is his political opinion. The European Arrest Warrant Act states no one can be extradited for political opinion and it says that the warrant is also invalid if it violates any of John’s Irish constitutional rights. In court I never heard that exact point brought up or even the exact term “political opinion”. I heard hypothetical arguments about the term “freedom of expression”.

If John is sent to prison in the UK this could set a new precedent taking away even more little freedoms we have left. If that happens why would it not apply to emails with links to documentaries or news articles? That is what’s at stake on the European level and on a local level it’s the dismantling of the Irish Constitution.

The prosecutor accused John of sending the DVDs to the court because he thought the accused men where innocent! The DVD is about four other men and never mentions the three men accused at the court the DVDs were sent to, plus doesn’t the law state that every person is innocent until proven guilty? As far as I know that right has not been taken away… yet, at least  for non-Muslims not detained in Guantanamo bay and other similar U.S. and UK rented facilities worldwide (for the moment).

John is charged with a common law offence, attempting to pervert the course of justice. The legal common law definition of perverting the course of justices is: “1) Fabricating or disposing of evidence, 2) Intimidating a witness or juror, 3) Threatening a witness or juror”. There was no fabricating of evidence, over 80% of the film is from public main stream media and the rest is John’s political opinion relating to that information. His film was also in the public domain on youtube. Intimidating or threatening is not mentioned on the European Arrest Warrant of course as no letter was sent and John is a peaceful spiritual man.

While a small few outside the court were handing people entering the four courts copies of John’s DVD the judge inside said what John did is not a crime in Ireland. Another one of the conditions of the European Arrest Warrant is that the charge must be a similar offence in Ireland. It would be like posting a newspaper to a court or handing a DVD to a person entering a court, who could well be a jury member.

John mailed the publicly available DVD in Ireland and has been living in Ireland, as a result he is afforded the rights of the Irish constitution, which the European Arrest Warrant also states. The EAW must do so as in Irish law there is no higher law of the land and parts of it are actually worth the paper it’s written on (unless there is a national emergency or we vote it away to some economic union).

The barristers argued back and forth for over an hour and outcome of John Anthony Hill’s court hearing last Thursday at the Dublin four courts was that a judgement would be announced on the second of April after the judge watches John’s DVD (7/7 Ripple Effect).

The following extracts are from the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 that shows John can not be surrendered for extradition as it violates his constitutional rights and he can not be extradited for his political opinion or for an offence that is not an offence in Ireland.

European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, “37 (1) A person shall not be surrendered under this Act if— (c) there are reasonable grounds for believing that— (i) the European arrest warrant was issued in respect of the person for the purposes of facilitating his or her prosecution or punishment in the issuing state for reasons connected with his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinion or sexual orientation,”

“37 (1) A person shall not be surrendered under this Act if –
(b) his surrender would constitute a contravention of any provision of the Constitution (other than for the reason that the offence specified in the European arrest warrant is an offence to which section 38 (1) (b) applies.” John’s case does not fall under section 38 (1) (b) which means surrendering him would violate the Irish Constitution, you can checkout section 38 (1) (b) here and the Framework Decision it references here.

The Irish Constitution is the highest law in Ireland that must be followed

Article 35.2, “All judges shall be independent in the exercise of their judicial functions and subject only to this Constitution and the law.”

Opinions can be expressed freely:

Article 40.6.1.i: “The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.”

The Irish Constitution was written originally written in Irish and following articles show that Irish is the first official language:

Article 8.1, “The Irish language as the national language is the first official language.”
Article 8.2, “The English language is recognised as a second official language.”

The standard Constitution uses alterations of the Irish language before translation to English which it clearly states, “the Irish text has been altered so as to make it conform to modern standardized Irish”. Here is what the literal English translation from the original Irish really says on article 40.6.1.i, “The right of the citizens to reveal their certitudes and their opinions without hindrance.” More powerful isn’t it?

The following article says English can be used for official business but it does not say English can override the original Irish Constitution: LITERAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION FROM ORIGINAL IRISH ARTICLE 8.3, “But provision may be made by law for either of those two languages to be a single language for any official businesses or business throughout the whole State or in any part of it.”

The following article from the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 is yet another point that the British issued European Arrest Warrant fails on: “5.—For the purposes of this Act— (a) an offence under the law of the issuing state [England] corresponds to an offence under the law of the State [Ireland], where the act or omission that constitutes the offence under the law of the issuing state would, if committed in the State, constitute an offence under the law of the State, and (b) an offence under the law of the State corresponds to an offence under the law of the issuing state.”

Anyone spiritual like John might like the following article of the Constitution: Article 34.5.1, “Every person appointed a judge under this Constitution shall make and subscribe the following declaration: ‘In the presence of Almighty God I, do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Chief Justice (or as the case may be) without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me.’ “