Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Julian Assange judgement

Julian Assange judgement

Ratings: (0)|Views: 46,133 |Likes:
Published by ABC News Online
Read the full judgement allowing Julian Assange to be extradigted to Sweden to face charges.
Read the full judgement allowing Julian Assange to be extradigted to Sweden to face charges.

More info:

Published by: ABC News Online on May 30, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





Easter Term[2012] UKSC 22
On appeal from: [2011] EWHC Admin 2849
JUDGMENTAssange (Appellant)
The Swedish ProsecutionAuthority (Respondent)
Lord Phillips, PresidentLord WalkerLady HaleLord BrownLord ManceLord KerrLord Dyson
Heard on 1 and 2 February 2012
 Appellant Respondent 
Dinah Rose QC Clare Montgomery QCMark SummersHelen LawAaron WatkinsHannah Pye(Instructed by BirnbergPeirce and Partners)(Instructed by SpecialCrime Division, CrownProsecution Service)
 Interveners (Mr Gerard  Batten MEP and Mr Vladimir Bukovsky) Intervener (Lord  Advocate)
Paul Diamond P Jonathan Brodie QC(Instructed by Chambersof Paul Diamond)(Instructed by TheAppeals Unit, CrownOffice)
Page 2
On 2 December 2010 the Swedish Prosecution Authority (“theProsecutor”), who is the respondent to this appeal, issued a European ArrestWarrant (“EAW”) signed by Marianne Ny, a prosecutor, requesting the arrest andsurrender of Mr Assange, the appellant. Mr Assange was, at the time, in England,as he still is. The offences of which he is accused and in respect of which hissurrender is sought are alleged to have been committed in Stockholm against twowomen in August 2010. They include “sexual molestation” and, in one case, rape.At the extradition hearing before the Senior District Judge, and subsequently onappeal to the Divisional Court, he unsuccessfully challenged the validity of theEAW on a number of grounds. This appeal relates to only one of these. Section2(2) in Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) requires an EAW to beissued by a “judicial authority”. Mr Assange contends that the Prosecutor does notfall within the meaning of that phrase and that, accordingly, the EAW is invalid.This point of law is of general importance, for in the case of quite a number of Member States EAWs are issued by public prosecutors. Its resolution does not turnon the facts of Mr Assange’s case. I shall, accordingly, say no more about them atthis stage, although I shall revert briefly to them towards the end of this judgment.2.
Part 1 of the 2003 Act was passed to give effect to the Council of theEuropean Union Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant andsurrender procedures between Member States of the European Union2002/584/JHA (“the Framework Decision”). I annexe a copy of the Englishversion of the Framework Decision to this judgment. As can be seen, the phrase“judicial authority” is used in a number of places in the Framework Decision. Inparticular it is used in article 6, which provides:“1. The issuing judicial authority shall be the judicial authority of theissuing Member State which is competent to issue a European arrestwarrant by virtue of the law of that State.”3.
It is Mr Assange’s primary case, as presented by Miss Dinah Rose QC, that“judicial authority” bears the same meaning in the Framework Decision as it bearsin the 2003 Act, so that the Prosecutor does not fall within the definition of “issuing judicial authority” within article 6 of the Framework Decision.Alternatively Miss Rose submits that, if “judicial authority” in article 6 of theFramework Decision has a meaning wide enough to embrace the Prosecutor, it has

You're Reading a Free Preview

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