Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Skeleton Reply CM

Skeleton Reply CM

Ratings: (0)|Views: 9,414 |Likes:
Published by swedenversusassange

More info:

Published by: swedenversusassange on Aug 13, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/25/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
1
 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CO/1925/2011QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISIONADMINISTRATIVE COURT
In the matter of an appeal pursuant to section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003
B E T W E E N
Julian Paul ASSANGEAppellant-v-Director of Public Prosecution SwedenRespondentRespondent’s Skeleton Argument
All bundle references are to those in the Appellant’s bundle, e.g. [1/19] is page 19 of tab 1 of the bundle.
For hearing: 12
th
and 13
th
July 2011
Suggested essential reading list:
!
European Arrest Warrant – [1/19-31]
!
Judgment of Senior District Judge Riddle, 24/02/2011 – [1/32-59]
!
Skeleton arguments
!
Further information from Judicial Authority – [4/77-81]
!
Report of Sven Erik Alhem – [13/563-567]
!
Report of Christopher Brunski – [16/753-754]
!
Witness statement of Goran Rudling – [11/339-442]
!
Witness statement of Jennifer Robinson – [18/765-1012]
!
Transcripts of evidence at Magistrates’ Court – [12/443-561, 15/597-751]
1. Introduction
1.1 The extradition of Julian Paul Assange (‘the Appellant’) is sought by the Director of Public Prosecution, Sweden (‘the Respondent’), pursuant to a European ArrestWarrant (‘EAW’) issued on 2
nd
December 2010. His surrender is sought so that hemay be tried in respect of sexual offences alleged to have occurred in August 2010.
 
 
2
 
1.2 Sweden is a designated Category 1 territory for the purposes of section 1 of theExtradition Act 2003 (‘the Act’). Part 1 of the Act
1
therefore applies to theseproceedings.1.3 The EAW was certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency (‘SOCA’) on 6
th
 December 2010. It was executed on 7
th
December 2010 when the Appellantsurrendered himself to Kentish Town police station where he was arrested.1.4 The substantive extradition hearing occurred before Senior District Judge Riddle,sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court on 7
th
, 8
th
and 11
th
February 2011. In a judgment dated 24
th
February 2011, the Senior District Judge rejected the argumentsagainst extradition advanced on the Appellant’s behalf and ordered his extradition.1.5 On 1
st
March 2011 the Appellant lodged this statutory appeal against the Senior District Judge’s decision.
2. Summary
2.1 Since the Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal were lodged his legal representation haschanged. The Appellant’s skeleton argument dated 30
th
June 2011 narrows theissues previously pursued in this appeal.2.2 The Appellant now only maintains arguments concerning the validity of the EAWpursuant to section 2 of the Act. There are five strands to this argument however:(i) The conduct described in the EAW does not provide a fair, accurateand proper description of what is alleged against the Appellant;(ii) The Appellant’s extradition is sought as part of an investigation, notfor the purpose of prosecution, nor is he an accused person;(iii) The use of an EAW is disproportionate when other means of obtaining the Appellant’s assistance in an investigation wereavailable to the Respondent;(iv) The EAW fails to provide adequate particulars of the conduct alleged,in particular the time of the offence described as allegation 3;
1
As amended by Schedule 13 to the Police and Justice Act 2006 and by Part 6 andschedules 7 and 8 to the Police and Crime Act 2009.
 
 
3
 
(v) The Public Prosecutor was not entitled to issue an EAW because sheis not a ‘judicial authority’.2.3 The Respondent submits that the Senior District Judge correctly decided the issuesbefore him and summarises its response to the Appellant’s arguments as follows:(i) The Appellant is unable to establish that the conduct set out in theEAW is anything less than fair, accurate and proper. Furthermore,the circumstances of this case do not justify an inquiry into thevalidity or accuracy of what is stated in the EAW;(ii) There is no ambiguity on the face of the EAW therefore the courtshould not consider any extrinsic evidence. Even if the court were toconsider the available extrinsic evidence it does not cast doubt uponthe clear purpose of this EAW: The Appellant is sought for thepurpose of conducting a criminal prosecution, and is sought as anaccused person;(iii) The EAW scheme complies with the principle of proportionality in EUlaw. Proportionality is not a free-standing bar to extradition inindividual cases. In any event, issuing an EAW was plainly aproportionate step on the facts of this case.(iv) The argument is misconceived because it is based on an inaccuracyin the translated EAW;(v) It is for the requesting state to select its own competent judicialauthorities. The Public Prosecutor in Sweden has been designatedthis function in Sweden.
3. Statutory appeal provisions
3.1 Sections 26 and 27 of the Act provide as follows:“26 Appeal against extradition order (1) If the appropriate judge orders a person’s extradition under this Part, theperson may appeal to the High Court against the order.(2) But subsection (1) does not apply if the order is made under section 46 or 48.(3) An appeal under this section may be brought on a question of law or fact.

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Silver Kayondo liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->