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
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Julian Paul Assange v. Swedish Prosecution Authority 13 July 2011

Julian Paul Assange v. Swedish Prosecution Authority 13 July 2011

Ratings: (0)|Views: 330,287|Likes:
Published by dave_f_phillips
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT BETWEEN: IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 - JULIAN PAUL ASSANGE v SWEDISH PROSECUTION AUTHORITY - SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT - 12th & 13th July 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT BETWEEN: IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 - JULIAN PAUL ASSANGE v SWEDISH PROSECUTION AUTHORITY - SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT - 12th & 13th July 2011

More info:

Published by: dave_f_phillips on Jun 09, 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

07/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
ceroi
nu
//'n1
t
.
v-
r,
IN THE
HIGH
COURT
OF
ruSTICEADMINISTRATIVE
COURT
BETWEEN:
Case
No:
CO/1
IN THE
MATTERof
an appealpursuant
tosection26of the
Extradition
Act2O03.
ruLIANPAUL
ASSANGESWEDISH
PROSECIJTION
AUTHORITY
Appelle4
Respondent
SKELETONARGUMENT
ON
BEIIALF
OF
TI{E APPELLANT
Date
of
hearing:
Time
estimate:Essential Reading:
Chronology:
12ft
&
t3s
July
zolI
2 rlays
(1
day
pro-ieading)
Skeleton
Arguments
EAW
and
supplemental
information
(4.2.1
1)
Witress
staternents
of
Mark
Stephens
(14.12.10;
10.1.11;
28.1.r1
&7.2.1r)
Wihess
statement
of
AndrewAshworth
(25
.
I
.
I
1
)
Report
of
Sven
Erik
Alhem
(28.1.1
1)
Witness
stat€ment
of
Goran
Rudling
(3
1
.1
.l
1)
Report
of
Christophe
Brunski
(2.2.11)Transcripts ofevidence in
Magistrates'
Court
(7
&
8.2.1
1)
Witness
stat€mont
of
JenniferRobinson(22.2.11)
Judgment
of
the
District
Judge
Q4.2.11)
See
below,
paragraph
2
 
{
 
2.13
On
27rtr
September
2010,the
Appellant's
counseladvised theprosecutorthat
he
had
been
unable
to
contactthe
Appellanf.
Theprosecutor
stated
that
she
would
consider
howto
proceed.
Later that
day,
t}re
prosecutor
ordered
that
the
Appellant
shouldbe
detained
'in
absentia'.
2.14
On
301h
September
2010,the
Appellant's
counsel was
advised
of
the existence
of
the arrest
order.
He
advised
the
prosecutor
thatthe
Appellant
was
abroad.
The
Appellant
offered
torctumto
Swcden
for interview
on Sunday
10m
October
or on
any
date
in
ttre
weekcommencing
11*
October 2010.TheSunday
wasrejected
as
inappropriate.
Theweek
commencing
1l'October
20i0
was later
rejected
as
beingtoo far away.
2.15
That
was
probabiy
because
police
believedthat
the Appellant
was
attending
a
lecture
in
Stockholmon
6'o
October
2010.Planswere made
to
detain
him
then
but lhat
information
proved
inaccurate-
2.16
Therefore,
on
8th
October
2010,
the
prosecutoragain contactedthe
Appellant's
sounsel
to
discuss
possible
appointunents
for interview.
The
Appellant's
counsel
offered
to
speak
to
the
Appellant
about
whether
he
would
be able
to
attend
on
14e
October
2010.
During the
same
conversation,
the Appellant,s
counsel
offered
a
telephone
interview"
which
was
declined
(the
prosecutorinsisting
that
the
Appellant
be
interviewed
in
person).
2.17
At
around
the
same
time,
the
prosecutor
stated
tlat,
notwithstandingthe
extant
anestorder,
that theAppellant was
'not
a
wanted
man,
and
would
be
ableto
attend
an
interview'discreetly'.
2.18
On
12tb
October
2010,
the
Appellant's
counseladvised
the
prosecutor
that
ho
had
been rmable
to
contact
the
Appellant.The
prosecutor
indicatedher intention
toissue
an
EAW
if
the
Appellant
did not
attend
for intsrview.
2.79
On 2"d
November
2010,
the
Appellant
tavelled
to
Switzerland
(to
lecturo
the
U.N.)
and
on
10th
November
20i0
to
the
United
Kingdom.
2.20
On
12th
November
2010,
the
Appellant's
counsel
invited
the
prosecution
to
propose
dates
for
interview and
offeted,
in
the
altemative,
a
telephone orvideolinkinterview,
or to
provide
a
statement
in
writing,
or
to
attendan
interview
in
person
at
the
AustralianEmbasst' which
were
all
declined(the
prosecutorinsisting
tlat
the
Appellant
be
interviewed in
person
in
Sweden).
Owing to ongoingdevelopmentsin
the
United
States
ofAmeriaa,
the
Appellant
had
been
keeping
a
deliberately
low
publicprofile
and avoiding
use
of
communicationdevices that
could
tracklris
location-
He
had
leff
Sweden
for
Berlinon
27t
September
2010,
without
knowledge
of
theissuance
of
the
arrest
warrant and
in
accordance
with
the
permission
to
Ieavegranted
by
theprosecutor
on
15s Septsmber2010.
Telephoneinterviews
with
suspects
abrcad
arc
lawful
in
Sweden and
qualifyfor
the
purposes
of
the
PreliminaryInvestigation.
All
ofwhich
are
lawful
in
Sweden and
qualifyfor
the
purposes
ofthe
PreliminaryInvestigation.

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
no se puede descargar
undermattan 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)//-->