The preservation of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) scheme is preferable to a system of bilateral agreements, a new paper argues.

The EAW allows for the extradition of individuals between EU member states to face prosecution for a crime of which they have been accused, or to serve an outstanding prison sentence.

It is based on the principle of mutual recognition of criminal decisions and enforcement of arrest warrants, and represents a move away from the conventional refusal of extradition on the grounds of nationality.

In Beyond Brexit – Beyond Borders Mutual Assistance in Policing and Investigating Organised Crime, Professor Liz Campbell of Durham Law School, looks at a number of challenges the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will pose for the policing and investigation of organised crime.

Professor Campbell states that one option for the EAW would be the conclusion of an agreement between the UK and the EU as well as EU agencies whereby the UK would be a third country, to maintain the existing scheme and that this would be preferable to bilateral arrangements.

“There are precedents for this, in that there are now arrangements with Norway and Iceland regarding surrender for instance, but these countries are full Schengen members, and have strong co-operation with EU members such as Denmark and Sweden through the Nordic arrest warrant. That said, the UK may not be in the same position as those countries as it is already an EU member,” she writes.

If the UK withdraws from the EAW, it would have to use mutual legal assistance by means of the international Letter of Request (LOR), a system which Professor Campbell says is “haphazard and takes too long”.

Added to this is the fact that being part of the scheme means recognising CJEU jurispridence.

Professor Campbell notes: “It is important to recall that it took Norway and Iceland eight years to negotiate their admission to the EAW scheme, and with this comes the need for them to recognise the CJEU jurisprudence. Oversight by the CJEU applies as an EU acquis must be interpreted in accordance with CJEU decisions.”