You are on page 1of 13

UK Supreme Court day 2 sweden versus assange

lord mance is my fave second from left lord brown is good

lady hale only woman 5th

lord walker center lord phillips president dyson far right lord kerf walker 3rd fm left

alexi mostrous told me mark stephens and/or FSI may be suing julian assange for unpaid legal

bills

i asked what he was seeking comment from mark stephens on before court started as per my accidental evesdrop yesterday

JA front lobby:

strolls alone arran meets KH and JA.

i was trying to tell him the glass panels at supreme court security reminded me of the gorillas

who occupy the Washington DC Zoo.

i was struck by their plight as a child and horrified that humans would lock them up so with a tv and a room, but the glass prison effect

JA said he likes this court that they don't have to show power because they have power (witty and true assangism)

the mottos:

sages and laws of this realm: affirmed.

if JA were a sage would the Sup Ct then need respect him.

DINAH ROSE

if a court looks on a second page under safeguarding human rights no referene ECHR safe trial

or

a judicial authority

framework make this explicit human rights test case make clear the national judge may lead to an infringement

CLAIRE MONTGOMERY

as is common ground it is clear under that provision authorities were knowledged in 1957 the convention itself the court

the reference to being included in concept hard copy "hard copy coming up"

79

50 for explanation

3850 obligation to extradite

julian drinks water

i want to show my lordship and your lady

6205

(soccer---the sport of law) previous flag

1996 makes the point

(braingarbage side note: 2005 sup ct established---to sep leg and judicial)

rather more material than material by miss rose whether it was in fact meant to convey judicial authority

woman judge: i dont have the additional materials the power to give notice direct notice in reference to the decision freamework ---removes---state to state---then judicial to judicial---

correction from yesterday uk brought eu to force in 9999 there is a larger number still south korea european convention 50 members straining its limits

second over fm left--- or other competant authorities

some countries notify prosecutors in which rubric ministries of justice

not all continental france judiciare magistrar de parque (french justice no paragon: racial decisions made by lone judge who accuses and tries and condemns)

hearing

flag eleven

julian sued on eve of extradition hearing by mark stephens---who has been defending phone hackgate victims

denmark competant authorities authorize public prosecution authorities and their police officers

finland article 14 ministry of justice constable germany uses competant judicail authorities nominates the public prosecutors office indicat ewhere the relevant authority is the prosecution office. nomination page seven. judicial authorities make req to prosec lies with min justice netherlands at page 8 has article 14

sarah harrison not present in the court room she is missed

the netherlands judicial authorities their defining public prosecutors relevant judical authority sweden unsurp. the pirate bay supreme court denies nom prosecutor general and other prosecutors

shengen treaty in our sub it is hardly likely

that in countries that have allowed them to be should abandon stat quo

195

large supplemental 158 supplement the article 95 provision on electronic 6221 flag one by bait

who may through stephens suit may keep JA in england people req. to go to prison in my respect provided for in a national law

admin of just whose decision can be characterized as judicial many of you judical authority

can go that far there is a fall back position under french constitution

prosecutor

second from right asks the best questions!

claire resp falling within the exercise of crim authority prag thought in france

he says: in france

there 1958 constitution france

swedish constitution guarantees fredom on info and equality of women and minorities and free speech and the right to shelter in first four sentences.

two parts magistrar du parque (prosecutors) in continental sense

prosecutot judical prosecutorial

too restrictive (second over left)

coming on heels of 911 julian left hand in L on face

judicial decisions

she goes on:

sorry

on shengen

article95

6221

flag when framework decision came in time available to us a complete list of auth

then we have art. 98 decisions wanted but not to be extradicted valid shengen request a court who will

assange oi oi oi noh8ter blog WIN

arran advises jim curran adjust coat

austria denmark police estonia police boards prosec finland germany hungary police--note the extradition debate 24 notes on mistreatment in these countries

swiss---center (fourth) he brings up shengen force other parts article 95 request nonono there is a new shengen information system

see interpol class action for wrongfully done EAW

judicial authority narrow meaning apol for spelling clare's name as claire i said "hi claire" on the way in

in relation to other UK process

the only other scheme other framework draft final form of the decision

the nordic state scheme for our lordships and lady

shearer book page 5497 the relevant description is at 5498 just over two thirds on the way down request can be one four one

australia high commmssion to my right---irish civil liberties jim curran to my left @m_cetera here and @storysearcher @justice4assange sit second row right corner

supporters from germany here.

claire:

ii indicated during the submissions made by miss rose

before the district

swedish prosecutor to make a request

a domestic detention

on basis of probable cause. an accusation the framework decision precendent for a conviction

i'm looking at pilger article

paragraph six

european arrest warrant same effect articles one and two

box

domestic process as you in sweden as in germany the box filled ina s with domestic warrant the conflicting decisions below lord dyson concl was not a reference for EAW for the reasons set out there the present divisional courts other decisions its entirely understandable that a EAW in domestic law of the arresting state---go. by definition::two from left asks where?

81

c

evidence of enforceable

judgement

an arrest warrant or other enforcable preceded by

ex hypothecae that must precede the EAW being issued first arrest second EAW

the only gal judge : comes from the word other; where does this say that it has to be a judicial

decision

anything on which it points unequiv the req for domestic legality

new slant: left 2 over: any def EAW sought under framework: there would be a domestic

decision

left two from right

q then issuance

found in the second appendix this was in fact an expert opion electronic 951 hard copy

court identifies

the page---electronic 212 hard copy 78 digital satygraha

EAW

to validate that process

four submissions his lawyer swedish supreme court

a fully argued challenge in sweden the EAW was issued issued

november

dated december

stockholm dropped it---judges point out

EAW being ammended---second from right has the poshest accent

maximum

certified

then

SVEA ct of appeal

thought that the domestic order not extra section 9 of the swedish act

then

now

obviously one of the problems

ventilated

at all when it emerged from ms rose one of the problems we've had sixth of december

turn to deal with the drafting history translation mirror any concern about the proposal ventilatate earlier today

com prop as miss rose has confirmed as it finally emerged at appendix 3

a day in the life of a wikileaks ninja---might consist of some guerrilla photo shoot.

a punk rock song.

 

a ripped blog.

 

a comment on another ninja's ripped wikileaks blog.

 

a letter to some really important figure in the wikileaks scene.

 

a letter to some really important enemy of wikileaks.

 

a phone call to some really important wikileaks supporter.

 

a surprise videoblog and phone call starring some to some really important enemy of wikileaks

at the state department or the US Attorney's office in alexandria, virginia.

 

the creation of some new blog---

 

youtube channel---

 

vimeo.

 

a work of art.

 

a package sent by mail.

 

an article read.

 

a

conversation on a bus.

 

hard copy page 1140 a september draft which turned into a final the terms of that draft hard copy

10-30

that is on the face of it sept. emerged

those who had the function under domestic law none of that changed the only reference to a court in part of the potential process the need for a hearing

can i just take the court through what we respectfully suggest the commission proposal firstly court has appendix three eleven 41 paragraph two makes quite clear the purpose mutual recog judicial judges ipso fact recognize extradition

JA turns around talks to kristinn and jennifer

extended definitions not all authorities clare montgomery hasnt read this

Lizzie O'Shea and Jen Robinson

Failure of the European Arrest Warrant framework from a human rights perspective

Julian Assange is the most well-known person in the world currently facing extradition. His case highlights some concerning developments in the law of extradition, in particular, the system of European Arrest Warrants (‘EAW’). Whatever the merits of the case against Assange under Swedish law, like everyone facing an EAW, he has every right to challenge the basis of his extradition. His case provides an insight into the more general problems of EAWs, which should concern all human rights advocates, extradition practitioners and policy-makers. Such insights may serve as a warning in Australia of what might happen if an overly expedient approach is taken to extradition treaty provisions.1

Extradition under international law

At international law, there is no duty on states to extradite individuals for the purpose of carrying out criminal proceedings in another country. But it is also a recognised principle of international law that states have legal authority over individuals within their geographic borders and can have mutual treaty obligations to extradite requested individuals. As such, a web of bilateral and multilateral treaties has emerged over time as circumstances have increasingly required a multi- state approach to crime. Issues that have motivated this include the increase in trans-national

crime, particularly in the digital age (and an increased capacity of enforcement agencies to police it) and the rise of the perceived threat of terrorism.2 Australia, like most states, has a raft of bilateral treaties with different countries which determine whether an individual can be extradited from Australia.3 Some countries have developed multi- lateral treaties in respect of extradition. The most obvious example is the EAW system which applies to members of the European Union (‘EU’). These treaties, as a body of international law instruments, have generally shared a range of underlying principles. As evidence of state practice, these shared principles arguably form the basis of customary international law. The principles include:4

1. the concept of double criminality: that the offence is really an offence in both the requesting

and requested countries;

2. speciality: that the person who is extradited may only be prosecuted with the offence for

which the extradition was granted;

3. political prosecutions: many countries will not surrender an individual if the proceedings are

tainted by inappropriate political considerations;

4. the possibility of certain forms of punishment: most states will not surrender an individual if

there is a substantial risk that they may face torture.

Many countries also refuse to allow extradition to a country where the individual may face the death penalty;

5. jurisdiction and citizenship: a state may refuse to extradite its own citizen as a rule. In such

a situation, the state may have jurisdiction to prosecute the alleged crime itself, if there is a suitable extra territorial crime;

6. the possibility of a breach of human rights: a state may elect to refuse extradition if the

result may be a breach of human rights (which also relates

to 4 above); and

against the accused. These principles and corresponding jurisprudence were developed to protect the individual

from the exercise of arbitrary power by the state and preserve the sovereignty of participating states. An effective system of extradition will recognise the need for those accused of crimes

to face justice, but balance this with safeguards to ensure respect for procedural fairness and

confidence in the criminal justice system of the requesting authority.

The EAW framework

After several years of preparation, the EAW framework was adopted in 2006.5 The foundations

of the system were established shortly before 9/11, the events of which ‘rapidly catapulted’ it to

completion.6 In short, it was rushed through in the wake of the terrorist attacks in late 2001. In this climate of fear, there was a call for authorities to be given greater capabilities to prosecute terrorism offences. Historically, members of the EU have had a clear interest in building on the co-operative basis which sits at the heart of the political project. As one scholar noted, prior to 2001 there was a tendency for ‘extradition within the EU to be slow, complex and political in nature — unsuitable for the frontier-free European judicial space to which the European Union

aspires’.7

A shared understanding and respect for legal and political processes among members

underpinned the EAW system (‘mutual recognition’). The system has created categories whereby, when certain crimes are alleged (ie serious crimes deemed extraditable offences:

Framework List offences), the requirement of double criminality has been removed. Additionally, the EAW system also relaxes the requirement that states show a prima facie case against the accused. The human rights considerations have also been eased on the basis that a transfer within Europe means the accused will have recourse to the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECHR’). The EAW framework may seem just a natural next step in the development in the law of extradition, especially given the co-operative nature of the EU and the principle of mutual

recognition between EU states. However, there are good reasons why the law of extradition has traditionally prioritised the protection of the individual over expediency. Pressure to create

a system based on mutual recognition, which was fast and efficient, meant that the concerns of

individuals and their circumstances came a distant second. For many, including Assange, this has had devastating human consequences and raised serious questions about the integrity of the system.

Problems with EAWs: Assange as a case study

Assange’s case provides an instructive example of the problems with the EAW framework. He

is now fighting extradition for crimes that do not exist in the UK — or in Australia, for that matter.

The four accusations are unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and ‘minor rape’ as described under Swedish law. The EAW system classifies crimes into categories according to seriousness, with the 32 Framework List offences deemed the most serious. These Framework List offences are deemed to be extraditable offences, removing the test of double criminality.8 Neither unlawful coercion nor sexual molestation constitute Framework List crimes. Assange is therefore able to make arguments about double criminality: namely, that the conduct alleged by Sweden would not amount to a crime in England. The fourth allegation however, is classified as rape, which is a Framework List offence and therefore the Swedish authorities are not required to satisfy the double criminality requirement. Under English and Australian law, rape is based on consent and the accused’s reasonable belief as to consent. There is no allegation in this case that either woman said ‘no’ to Assange nor is it alleged that he did not believe them to have consented to the sexual interaction. In

Sweden, the crime of sexual molestation is based on whether sexual integrity is deemed to have been harmed. Rape and the problematically described offence of ‘minor rape’ are not based on the notion of consent: they are based on the use of physical force in acts of sex. This definition has been expanded over time, in recognition of the fact that rape does not always involve physical coercion, to now include ‘minor rape,’ ie where the woman could be deemed to have been in a ‘helpless state’. But because Sweden ticked the Framework List ‘rape’ box on the EAW, Assange cannot argue about whether the conduct alleged in the fourth allegation would amount to a crime and be prosecuted under English law, which is, in fact, unlikely.9 Moreover, Assange may have concerns about being tried in a closed court, which Sweden permits in sexual assault cases, in a judicial system in which lay judges (jurors) are appointed by political parties. Important provisions in Australian law exist to protect complainants in sexual offences cases, such as anonymity through the use of video-link testimony. However, in Sweden, all press and public are excluded, a clearly disproportionate interference with the right to a public trial and a possible breach of Article 6 of the European Charter of Human Rights. But any concerns about human rights under the EAW Framework must be taken up in the ECHR. This serves as cold comfort, as applicants must wait up to five years to have their matter heard. The future possibility of an ECHR application comes far too little too late: any application would be heard long after Assange had completed his potential jail term in Sweden. Despite this practical reality, as commentators have noted, the possible breach of the European Convention on Human Rights has ‘generally proved a fruitless ground of challenge’.10 To successfully resist extradition under the Framework, based on human rights concerns, is immensely difficult. The high bar in respect of the human rights violation is nearly impossible to meet, an issue which was criticised in the recent UK Parliamentary review of the human rights implications of UK extradition policy.11 Assange is a high profile prisoner. His experience has brought to light the widespread problems with EAWs, a campaign which has, until now, been less than high profile. There is a litany of troubling stories about EAWs. Edmund Arapi, a UK resident, was tried and convicted in absentia of the killing of Marcello Miguel Espana Castillo in Genoa Italy in 2004.12 This is despite the fact that Arapi had not left the UK at all between 2000 and 2006. Arapi was arrested by British authorities enforcing an EAW from Italy. It was unclear whether Arapi would be able to secure a retrial, but it was likely he would be held on remand for years awaiting the outcome of such an application. The EAW was granted by the English courts in 2010. On the day of Arapi’s appeal to the High Court, Italian authorities agreed to withdraw the EAW. But it was only after extensive lobbying efforts by NGOs that the Italian authorities admitted they had sought Arapi in error.

or is hiding the contents of her knowledge from the court. she is either being naive or sadistic.

re the french tradtiion where prosecutors call themselves judges---who 1958

CAMBODIA JA makes the funniest face and batts his eyes in disbelief clare is aspiring to

SO WHAT?---left over from the left--- my case is so what (email me yr notes arran) ex hypothecae impartial adjudication

exported from abroad

clare---general---request surrender decision must be recognized almost prop---jurisdiction

if being convicted or remanded in custody the recog

nothing shocking of human rights norms

the issues raised by weapons lobbyist for BAE india DAVID CAMERON to suppress ECHR human rights v. extradition to torture very very pert to this case

see

domestic law problems

electronic page 50 possibility of the scheme suspending the prosecution thus effectively stay in the country he found himself

then

hard copy 1017 under art 17

a req to go b4 a ct

hearing had to be in a court the peron must be brought before a court in ten days

there are exceptions

article 95 com prop find s way into framework decision

the solicitor with assange and gareth who is he? assange speaks to brown haired assistant in grey suit article 18

a court in the executing state shall decide we have three pages "its just astonishing" @storysearcher

it will give anyone whose is interested

clare

legislative process

clare missed out terrorism ammendments nothing that ---re anxiety ---not a word

a good deal of anxiety

double criminality jen and KH and assistant are conferencing

now copy over to a scribd doc

courtroom is rustling--- mary rose lenore eng