Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
 1
 ABCDEFG
 
APPENDIX
The judgment of the High Court is not yet reportedExtradition – Extradition Act 2003 - European Arrest Warrant - public prosecutor -whether a judicial authorityThe cause occupied the time of the High Court (Administrative Court) for 10 hours and31 minutes (excluding delivery of reserved judgment)
In The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
ON APPEALFROM HER MAJESTY’S HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) (ENGLAND AND WALES)Neutral citation of judgment appealed against: [2011] EWHC 2849(Admin)BETWEEN:JULIAN PAUL ASSANGEApplicantvSWEDISH PROSECUTION AUTHORITYRespondent
 
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ISSUES
 
 2
 ABCDEFG
 
APPENDIX
Extradition request
1. The Appellant is an Australian citizen and is 40 years of age (born 3
rd
 July 1971).2. The extradition of the Appellant has been requested by a PublicProsecutor in Sweden. Sweden is designated a Category 1 territorypursuant to section 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 (by The ExtraditionAct 2003 (Designation of Part 1 Territories) Order 2003, SI. 2003 No.3333). Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) applies, asamended by schedule 13 to the Police and Justice Act 2006 and by Part6 of, and Schedules 7 & 8 to, the Policing and Crime Act 2009.
Chronology
3. On
13
th
August 2010
, the Appellant entered Sweden as a visitor.4 During his visit he had sexual intercourse with two women [AA andSW]. After AA and SW spoke to each other and realised that they hadboth had intercourse with the Appellant during the currency of his visitin circumstances where respectively they had or might have been orbecome unprotected against disease or pregnancy, SW wanted theAppellant to get tested for disease. On
20
th
August 2010
SW went tothe police to seek advice. AA accompanied her for support. The policetreated their visit as the filing of formal reports for rape of SW andmolestation of AA.
13/p329-334, 485
 
 3
 ABCDEFG
 
APPENDIX
5. The reports were filed as:i. Case No. K246314-10 [complainant SW] as ‘rape’.ii. Case No. K246336-10 [complainant AA] as ‘molestation’.6 On 20
th
August, police related the reports to the on-duty assistantprosecutor (Maria Kjellstrand) over the telephone who, at 5pm, orderedthat the Appellant should be arrested.7. A preliminary investigation was commenced and both women wereinterviewed (SW on 20
th
August, and AA on 21
st
August). At theconclusion of those interviews, on
21
st
August 2010
, the case was takenover by the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm (Eva Finne). Havingassessed the evidence, she cancelled the arrest warrant against theAppellant; she having made the assessment that the evidence did notdisclose any offence of rape (against SW).8. The preliminary investigation continued in respect of:i. Whether the conduct alleged by SW could constitute some lesseroffence,ii. Whether the conduct alleged by AA could constitute‘molestation’.9. On
25
th
(sometimes erroneously referred to as 23
rd
) August 2010
, theChief Prosecutor determined that:
13/p335-34312/p253-25713/p501,50312/p255-25613/p502-50312/p254-25712/p260-26113/p329-334
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more