Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
UK supreme court notes julian paul assange of wikileaks (eng docs compiled)

UK supreme court notes julian paul assange of wikileaks (eng docs compiled)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 72|Likes:
Published by mary eng

More info:

Published by: mary eng on Feb 05, 2012
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

02/09/2012

pdf

text

original

 
SUPREME COURT 1-feb-2012when assange and kristinn made it through the gate i raised my hand and smiled a big yayhooray---he said softly"i'made it through" the paparazzi---or the assassins??? then he and teamwent through securitythe barrister female speaks executive parties swedish prosecutor cannot be a judicial authorityno one can be a judge in her own cause a parochial common law concept natural justice codexeuropanus predates treaty rome basic norm of europeanprinted case 63 pages 15 volumes supported judicial authority read with an extended meaning swedish prosecutor derived from the europeanframework decision which the 2003 act was to replace the appeal careful examination what ismeant by judicial authority 2003 act a little longer in our submission it will end in the same placebasic legal principle EAW constitutes a interference with individual liberty since the swedishprosecutor---she is not to EAW issue for 2003 act proceed: consider principles interp 2003 actinterp judicial authority three broad areas the general context in which the framework was madelegislative process the language of the framework decision third relevance to that and praxismember states swedish prosecutor---judicial authoritydecision of divisional court and see the flaws interp 3003 act 3 cases: cando armas volume 2tab 222456 electronic(excellent microphones and clear audio unlike royal courts) mandatory for the hard copy andelectronic copies matching---ammmend---persuasion---the nudge theory one of seven judgesfemale. familiar to many members of the court---significant change in extradition practice ineurope paragraph seven and paragraph 8straight forward transposition twin assumptions provisions of part one greater cooperationprinciple to be applied 2003 act lord hope lord bingam paragraph 21---town council this is nt a nextradition system at all---paragraph---16 my lord---reference to lewis carroll through the lookingglasssystem of backing of warrants requesting authority limited lord hope is identifying the radicaleffect of the framework 2003 grounds on which extradition can be refused a system of mutualrecognition built on trust and confidence high level in EU heat in UK re lack of to protect those---the new system has to earn trust----to protect rights--- second importantprinciple at framework decision trust which requires confidencethe streamlining of extradition balanced by a streamlining of rights protection for the rights of individuals extradition treaties statutory destruction\liberty at stakerights removed by procedures framework decision if there are differences unlawful infringementof liberty differencegoes to the frameworkJ: extra protection----would inhibit extradition??!!!response: if there was an impossible compatible decision lord hope prepared all the way not tograpple withsame wording in both instrumentswhen looking at the term judicial authority broad ambitmaintain trust and confidence by recognizing the individual the correct interpretationJ purple tie: react difference answer: your lordship is absolutely right a general approach toconstruction we do have a fall back positioncase of dabas-- paragraph 2257 electronic---here similar analysis from lord bingam the propinocase to framework decision lord hope---at paragraph 18 after looking at various obligationinherent in the existing procedures sufficient controls to decide whether or not surrender was inaccord with the terms judicial state to question complexity and delay inimical to its objectives 74-75case of caldereli
 
whether judge was right to treat it as an accusation warrant this depends on mutual recognition---defer---to the judge-- 2246 paragraph 42 cannot in any view determine the matter one seeshere the mutual trust and confidence on which the european arrest warrantthe house of lords feels the trust of a foreign judeg that is undermined if the arrest warrant ismade by a prosecutor no doubt it will be pointed out canoarmis case issue not addressed by the house of lords in thecalderelli caselord bingam---rely on the fact there has been a domestic judicial decision----what is it that thedomesticJ issuesansw if part one warrant is it properly categorizedissuing judicial authority depends on the domestic law of the state the proper category whether for extradition or offense a form identifying the various features----clear isssue of discretion--whether it is proportionate proper approach for meaning propino principle framework decisionindividual rights to libertymust be carefully and properly appliedcore topic proper interp of the framework decision itself the framework the legislative processthe 2003 act the language of the framework decision(footman) extradition applied in europe b4 framework entered # of treaties bilateral council of europe 1957 volume 3 of the appendix in the electronic numbering its 96annnexed european convention---if we turn to the convention itself---article one deals with theobligation to extradict subject lay down request for an offense for the carrying out of a sentencethe provisional court relied on a judicial authority meant on this convention the contractingparties to each other made by statesnot a system analogous to the backing of the warrant---it was a protocol between states.or that person is wanted a reference to the fact that a person is wanted for an offense or sentencediff than2003 act 12 articlesame effect laid down in the party any arrest warrant the requirement law requesting partywe then have the expalnatory report---volume 9 soft copy 3850 core volume if a court goes to3850 under the heading obligation to extradict---article onebilateral convention france and germany thus the article has a bearing as a wholeauthorite judiciare---excludes police!!!keep your thumb in there and then take up the supplement 162 tab page 6275i agree my lady this is why i am a hard copy fan (too bad we arent reading cablegate)article one second---continue en le texte francaise\les autorite propre mon dit des exclusionparque---prosecution (wood slab in court???) propre mon dit thos of course are not explanatoryin the english the french text recognizes authority judiciarywe submit that thats understandable with the english and french texts----the english does notuse the purpose in article one to identify the authorities proceeding for the commission of theoffense--- is the prosecution000in french there is a distinction between the judicail authority and the prosecution---through the diplomatic channel thats all you getthat is accompanied by an arrest warrant----different systermmy lord if we go back to article one---it for one wanted to serve a sentence for a conviction---irish civil liberties defender jim curran says into my ear "she is very good" re assange's lawyer all parties proceeding for the offense envisions situation in which authoritesthen if a court makes a detention order it would issue awarrant for an arrest origin is a bilateraltreaty btw germany in francesituation in sweden
 
my lord thats absolutely right look at the functions of the prosection and authorityq; not concerned with a particular prosecution---extensive case law from the ECHR can constitute judicial authority we submit---this is astraightforward case---already examined---quite dense---57 convention the purpose of article one wholly diff from the nature of the partiesproceeding explanatory in frenchdifferentauthority judiciare---established on a europe wide basis---that the clarity of function the partieswho used these terms referred to this Ecommission on human rightsms. montgomery---this case law---irrelevant---impartial judge rather than a party with respect wesay that she misses the point the factual matrix must be decidedconvention the term they chose to use echr did not seek to define qualify it bc it was understoodconcept of a judicial authority as used in a framework decision----english textfrench text 6148 6149 both out ogether-- one--five--four both english and french rtexts authentic.first.everyone has the security of liberty of person proscribed by lawlawful arrest of detention to bring before competent legal authority on suspicion of an offensce553 everyone arrested shall be brought before a judge to exercise judicial power---and entitledto a reasonable trialarticle 5 arrete l' autorite competant judicialthe ref to the competent judicial authority---ultimately the frameworkk decision provisions--jugautreprovisions in the convention french text---framework decision--6291---article six---autorite judiciare etat mission competant pour delivre mandate authorite judiciare in the french----claire's mate on right smiling and noddingsame thing as judge authorized to issue judicial power second principle ECHR recognizesa diversity of legal systems but nevertheless imposes a boandary drawn very clearly reindependence from th eexecutive and the parties---applied to mean prosecutors cannot exercise article 5 judicial authority to extradict shieser andswitzerlandi am sure your ladyship is right--german worse than french. judicial power---paragraph 27promptly before contracting states and choiceconvention mentioned them---clearly recognize---sides magistra juge judge power not kept to adjudicating disputes---prosecuting authorities---find judicial auth---(super sleepy from no sleep)stricter requirements--wishes to emphasize th elimits---paragraph 3---abbreviated form for judge51c synonym for 5citer alia be independent of executor or parties may not take the form of arrests.if the person in power does not enjoy independence.offer gaurantees---judicial power---officer not identical with a judeg---must satisfy certainconditions--- in this the cour t confronts and appreciates the differenct legal systems---set s a clear limit on independence of the parties. context. all important. no one should bedispossessed.procedure---judicial category. the issue of deprivation of liberty. battery at 675 essentially toverify the provisions the person must be surrendered---removal of liberty---lose their job--amuch more severe interferencer---than pretrial detention.where that leads us---european arrest warrant---what does that carry with it---individual shouldhave the right to be heard---we will need to go to the framework decision----primary point---parties... must be taken to have done so-----two points---properly detained. giving the person achance to be heard

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)//-->