The extradition of Julian Assange. Source: News Limited
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange fears he will be extradited to the US for prosecution over charges associated with his WikiLeaks website. Picture: AP Source: AAP
- UK Supreme Court rules to extradite Assange to Sweden
- Result was 5-2 majority
- Assange will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights
- Court: Assange supporters scared for his safety
- The Punch: Lack of transparency makes Assange case smell
THE UK Supreme Court has ruled to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from the UK to Sweden to face sexual assault charges, but his legal team have asked for 14 days to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
The London court announced its judgement in a hearing at 6:15pm (AEST).
The 40-year-old Australian is wanted in Sweden to face questioning over alleged sex crimes against two women.
He has now exhausted all his legal options in Britain, but could still make a last-ditch appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
Assange lodged his appeal against extradition with the Supreme Court in February, with his lawyers arguing the European arrest warrant used to seek his extradition was not valid as the Swedish prosecutor did not have sufficient authority to order the extradition.
This was rejected by a majority of five to two by the Supreme Court justices.
Lawyers for Assange secured a two-week stay however, arguing the decision by the judges was based on a point of law that was not discussed in court.�
Court: Assange supporters scared for his safety
The Punch: Lack of transparency makes Assange case smell
Dinah Rose QC said the majority of members of the Supreme Court panel had made their decision based on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties - which was never brought up at the time. She may decide to challenge the validity of today's ruling on that basis.
Assange will not be extradited until that two-week period is completed.
Once in Sweden, he would then be tried behind closed doors as rape trials in the country are held in "secret".
Assange fears that if he is sent to Sweden he will then be extradited to the US for prosecution over charges associated with his WikiLeaks website, which released hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic cables that revealed a mass of US secrets.
Court to revisit Assange appeal: lawyer
Lawyers for Assange argued that the prosecutor was not a judicial authority, the title necessary to order an extradition.
Five justices at the UK Supreme Court disagreed with Assange, while two decided in his favour.
"The majority has concluded that the Swedish Public Prosecutor was a judicial authority ... it follows that the request for Mr Assange's extradition has been lawfully made and his appeal against extradition is dismissed," Lord Phillips said.
Assange's barrister, Dinah Rose, QC, pounced on the judgment, suggesting that the majority of justices based their decision on an interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a point of law which had not been argued during the appeal hearing.
Subsequently, Ms Rose was granted 14 days to submit an application to the court which could lead to the appeal being reopened.
"The minority of judges considered that the words 'judicial authority' mean what they say: a court and a law," Assange's solicitor Gareth Peirce said outside court after the judgment.
"Lady Hale in her dissenting judgment considered that the basis on which the majority decided was putting the cart before the horse: that you cannot say that practice determines what the law means."
Ms Pierce said the matter must be given further consideration by the court.
"We will be informing the Supreme Court that the basis on which the majority decided the Vienna Convention point, the practice, trumping the law, was not argued before the court at all and we therefore didn't have an opportunity to argue it and that in itself would be a breach of ... a fair hearing," she said.
Assange has previously indicated that if his Supreme Court appeal was unsuccessful he would consider taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson, QC, said the British Supreme Court decision was "inevitable" but not unanimous.
"There are technical possibilities and of course the main issue is the European Court of Human Rights because that is the final court in Europe, and certainly he has a reasonable prospect there, but it is unlikely that they would halt the extradition," he told the ABC.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard said Australia would provide consular services to Mr Assange.
Assange work could be targeted: union
The head of the journalists' union in Australia fears a UK Supreme Court decision allowing Julian Assange to be extradited to Sweden to face allegations of sexual assault could open the door for the WikiLeaks founder to be charged over his journalism.
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) federal secretary Chris Warren told AAP the Queensland man could now be a step closer to extradition to the US.
"Our concern is not so much the possibility of him facing charges in Sweden," he said today.
"Our concern has always been that he could (ultimately) face serious charges for the journalistic work that he has done through WikiLeaks."
He said Assange had been a member of the MEAA for 10 years and that the organisation he founded should be treated as a media outlet.
"This is an organisation that has really changed the way we think about journalism," he said.
In 2011, the union's Walkley Foundation awarded WikiLeaks the prize for most outstanding contribution to journalism.
Swedish prosecutors have sought Assange's extradition from the UK so he can be questioned about claims by two women that he sexually assaulted them in Stockholm in August 2010.
Legal options:
- Assange can apply to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the French city of Strasbourg to lodge a final appeal against the European Arrest Warrant issued by Sweden. The ECHR has 14 days to decide whether it will hear the appeal.
- Assange would also have to apply to the ECHR to issue a separate interim order that Britain cannot extradite him to Sweden during that 14-day period.
- "If what he wants to achieve is stop himself going to Sweden, then he needs his interim relief. Because, without it, he will have an appeal which will simply be heard in a number of years' time when he will be back in Sweden," Anand Doobay, a consultant at London law firm Peters & Peters, told AFP.
- If the ECHR does not issue an interim order, Assange can still apply for an injunction from the British courts against his extradition while he awaits the ECHR's decision on whether it will hear the appeal, a Crown Prosecution Service spokeswoman told AFP.
- If neither the ECHR nor the British courts make such an injunction, Britain's Serious Organised Crime Agency can proceed with moves to extradite Assange within that 14-day period. Under the European Arrest Warrant rules, SOCA must hand over Assange to Sweden within 10 days after his last appeal is exhausted, a spokesman for the agency said.
- Should Britain be successful in extraditing him to Sweden, and the ECHR agrees to hear the case, it would then deal with the case while Assange is in Sweden. If it eventually grants his appeal the ECHR can order him sent back to Britain.
- If Assange is still in Britain and the ECHR decides to hear the appeal, his current strict bail conditions remain in force and he can remain in Britain until the ECHR proceedings have concluded.
- with Agence-France Presse and AAP
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/newscomaumostpopularworldndm/~3/Q0dcg3xqa4I/story01.htm
heart attack grill morganza spillway machiavelli clenbuterol
0 comments:
Post a Comment