The British Supreme Court has apparently released its judgement on Julian Assange‘s appeal against extradition to Sweden for questioning over alleged sex offences. It is reported by the BBC (as at 6.33pm AEST) that Mr Assange lost his appeal against extradition.
The Wikileaks founder denied the claims and said his European arrest warrant is “invalid and unenforceable”.
In February, his lawyers told the Supreme Court judges that the Swedish prosecutor who had issued the warrant did not have the authority to do so.
The 40-year-old Australian has been on conditional bail in the UK.
Mr Assange is accused of raping one woman and “sexually molesting and coercing” another in Stockholm in August 2010 but he claims that the allegations against him are politically motivated.
Mr Assange’s Wikileaks website published material from leaked diplomatic cables embarrassing several governments.
The key legal question for the seven judges is whether the prosecutor who issued the arrest warrant had the judicial authority to do so under provisions of the 2003 Extradition Act.
Further appeal?
At the February court hearing, Mr Assange’s lawyer, Dinah Rose QC, argued that the Swedish prosecutor who had issued his warrant was a party in his case and was not therefore impartial or independent.
She also challenged whether a public prosecutor could be considered a “judicial authority” as required by the act.
Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish Prosecution Authority, argued that the High Court was plainly correct to accept that the term “judicial authority” had a wide meaning.
She said when the EAW framework had been set up, the drafters had intended it to include the prosecutors of many countries.
This “broader approach” recognised the “historic role” of public prosecutors within EU member states in authorising arrests and making extradition requests, she said.
If Mr Assange loses his Supreme Court appeal he could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
If that court then decided to hear his challenge, Mr Assange could lodge an injunction to have the extradition process put on hold.
But the Crown Prosecution Service said if the ECHR declined to take the case “he will be extradited to Sweden as soon as arrangements can be made”.
Many campaigners on Assange’s behalf argue that the extradition is based on no or poor evidence in Sweden, and is primarily a “front” for America to extradite Assange to the USA to face charges over Wikileaks.
Related articles
- Assange’s mother fearful of Swedish prison (thelocal.se)
Well, This Is What I Think 
My problem with his continued fighting the extradition is, if the evidence is poor or non-existent go fight the evidence in open court.
LikeLike
I understand that it is not the “minor rape” case he is worried about – a dispute over condoms, apparently – it is the fact that a secretly convened Grand Jury in Virginia has been sitting for 18 months, and it is rumoured it has a sealed indictment for either espionage or conspiracy just ready and waiting for him to be somewhere other than the UK. If the USA would get “off his case” he’d go and asnwer the “sex case” tomorrow – the problem is Sweden is far more likely to extradite him than the UK or Australia. Frankly, the whole situation stinks.
LikeLike