VOTERS weighing the potential effects of leaving the European Union are posed with two opposing ‘realities’ put forward by rival campaigners regarding the criminal justice system.

Pro-EU parties warn that cutting ties with the union on Thursday would lead to the collapse of cooperative policing policies that allow the UK to utilise foreign forces, while proBrexit groups believe lax border control is piling pressure on officers and leaving the country vulnerable to criminals from abroad.

Oxfordshire county councillor John Howson, a former magistrate who is a vicepresident of the Magistrates’ Association, said: “We are better off in than out in terms of law and order.

“One of the core policies of the Leave campaign is about loss of sovereignty but we have maintained a legal system which is utterly different to the law of Europe, throughout our time in the EU.

“We have a common law system, for instance the magistrates’ court system based on volunteers acting as Justices of Peace, without any interference from Europe at all.

“A relatively small number of decisions are made at the top in the European Court of Justice.

“The other risk of a Brexit is that it’s easier for national governments to tinker with human rights and the protection of minorities.

“There’s always a risk that if you are part of a smaller group you have got less understanding of the wider picture – we live in a global village.

“We clearly have to work with our neighbours with things like cyber crime and the growing number of other crimes which cross borders.

“It’s easier to fight those in larger organisations, otherwise we will have limited bargaining power.

“Undoubtedly if we don’t have Europol we will have to set up another institution to press for cooperation at an extra cost, which could be more expensive than staying in.

“There is also the advantage of the European Arrest Warrant – Costa del Sol crimes have been much reduced after arresting people in Spain.”

Mr Howson stood as a candidate for the Liberal Democrats in April’s police andcrime commissioner elections, but lost out to Anthony Stansfeld who opposes his views on the EU.

Conservative Mr Stansfeld, who is paid by taxpayers to hold Thames Valley Police to account, said criminal justice would be much better enforced if Britain opted out of the European Union.

He said: “Uncontrolled immigration has led to an increase in population and put all our services under huge pressure, including on the police force.”

Borderless control is usually chalked up to a treaty called the Schengen Agreement, which campaigners believe provides an open door for radical groups and terrorists to encroach on Britain’s borders without question.

Mr Stansfeld previously branded it “the biggest threat” to social stability.

In reaction to his former PCC competitor’s concerns about a lack of cooperation between European police forces, Mr Stansfeld said: “We have dismally failed to achieve that anyway.”

He raised concerns about “colossal youth unemployment” that could come from “a flood of very qualified multilingual”

immigrants, which could in turn prove detrimental to crime levels.

But Dee Sinclair, Oxford City Council’s board member for community safety, disagreed.

The Labour councillor for Quarry and Risinghurst said: “I am going to question him (Mr Stansfeld) on how he can justify what he is saying.

“I challenge his decision to support the Vote Leave campaign and his position on it making us a more secure country.

“I support the remain position very strongly, for many reasons including how we respond to crime and community safety.

“By far we are safer together, working cooperatively. It’s easier to share information and there is more trust and cooperation together.

“In many ways you have more of a relationship and trust in a cooperative situation, including sharing information.

“The alternatives suggested are far too vague. I am not saying our system is perfect, it does need reform, but there is too much uncertainty if we leave and not enough thinking through the impact.”

EU POLICING AND JUSTICE

  • THE European Arrest Warrant: Allows EU countries to retrieve criminal suspects from abroad, requiring member states to arrest and transfer that person back to a country to face trial or detention.
  • Europol: The EU’s crime-fighting agency, which offers member states resources like intelligence information and cross-border teamsto tackle some of the continent’s most dangerous criminal and terrorist networks.
  • The Schengen Agreement: A treaty which allows EU citizenstomovefreely acrossmost of thecontinent without checks astheycrossinto countries. The UK has not signed up to it, but most other member states have.
  • European Court of Justice: The highestcourt in the EU, whichmake sure EU Law is applied in the same way in all EU countries and settles disputes between national governments and EU institutions.
  • European Court of Human Rights: This is not an EU institution but that of the Council of Europe, which has many members in the EU, and has the power to overturn human rights rulings in UK courts.

EU ACTIONS IN THE FIELD OF JUSTICE

  • Following terrorist attempts to blow up planes at Heathrow Airport in 2006, the European Commission enforced a limit on the quantity of liquid, aerosols and gels carried past airport security.
  • The execution of a European Arrest Warrant led to the arrest of Salah Abdeslamin Belgium, the only surviving suspect of Paris terror attacks in November, and his extradition back to France.
  • Last month one of the top legal advisers to the European Court of Justice said EU countries should be overruled by the court on extradition if terror and crime suspects appealed on the grounds of a breach of human rights.