Europe's judges and prosecutors should be more ready to exchange evidence with their counterparts in other EU member states, the chief prosecutors of England and Wales, and Ireland said last week.

A seminar in Germany organised by the Academy of European Law also heard that if the planned European evidence warrant is to be an effective tool in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, it must overcome numerous hurdles thrown up by the EU's diverse legal cultures.


Ken Macdonald QC, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) of England and Wales, hailed recent initiatives to promote better co-operation between EU judicial authorities, such as Eurojust, set up in 2002. France, Italy, Spain and the UK have also posted liaison magistrates in one another's capitals to 'translate the judicial proceedings of one state into a form that works within those of another'.


But Mr Macdonald said: 'There is a limit to what these can achieve. They speak the language of their country and they may know who to talk to, but they are intermediaries. The differences in the systems and the occasional mismatch between what is sought and what can be provided must still be managed.'


The proposed European evidence warrant, which should be adopted by the end of 2005, is meant to remedy this by standardising procedures.


However, prosecutors said it would still face many of the problems associated with existing forms of mutual legal assistance, as rules on evidence differ from country to country.


Ireland's DPP, James Hamilton, told delegates that differences in national procedures could render evidence inadmissible - for example, search warrants would breach the constitutionally guaranteed right to the inviolability of a dwelling in Ireland.


Mr Hamilton added that the EU would need to balance closer co-operation with respect for national legal traditions - this would mean the legality of obtaining evidence would be judged according to the law of the place where the evidence was obtained, but 'states would still remain free to decline to use evidence the nature of which is inadmissible in their system'.