SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange arrives at the Supreme Court in Westminster, on the second day of his extradition appeal, in central London, February 2, 2012. (REUTERS/Andrew Winning)
Wikileaks' Assange Appeals UK Extradition Decision
Lawyers for Julian Assange on Tuesday challenged the UK Supreme Court's decision to extradite the WikiLeaks founder to Sweden to face sexual assault charges.
Assange - who denies the accusations - is concerned that extradition to Sweden could ultimately lead to his eventual transfer to the United States.
The 40-year-old Australian lost his appeal against a lower court's ruling on May 30th.
Jun 12, 2012
Lawyers for Julian Assange on Tuesday challenged the UK Supreme Court's decision to extradite the WikiLeaks founder to Sweden to face sexual assault charges.
Assange - who denies the accusations - is concerned that extradition to Sweden could ultimately lead to his eventual transfer to the United States.
The 40-year-old Australian lost his appeal against a lower court's ruling on May 30th.
Assange's lawyer argued last that the court's ruling had been based on a legal point that had not been argued in court in February, preventing his defense lawyers from presenting a defense.
If that argument is accepted, then the UK's top court will re-open Assange's appeal.
If not, then Assange will have seven days to challenge the ruling at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France - his last legal recourse to halt his extradition.
Reopening a UK Supreme Court case after a ruling has been made is virtually unheard-of, and legal experts in London say it would be a major embarrassment for Britain's most senior judges.
"It would be very damaging for their reputation," Julian Knowles, a lawyer with London's Matrix Chambers, told The Associated Press late last month.
* * *
Reutersreports:
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has appealed against Britain's Supreme Court's decision to back his extradition to Sweden over alleged sex crimes.
Two weeks ago, judges at Britain's top court rejected his argument by a 5-2 majority that a European arrest warrant for his extradition was invalid, seemingly putting an end to an 18-month legal battle.
However, his lawyers argued that some of the judges had reached their decision based on a legal point that had not been argued in court, preventing the defense team from making a counter-submission.
The court agreed to give Assange 14 days to challenge the decision and a spokeswoman said on Tuesday that an appeal had been submitted.
"No time has been set to look at the evidence," the spokeswoman said. "We are hoping it will be done promptly." [...]
His lawyers argue the European arrest warrant was invalid because it was issued by a prosecutor and not a judge or a court, as required in Britain. Prosecutors say different legal procedures are allowable under the internationally agreed format.
Even if he loses the appeal in Britain, the Australian could take his case to the European Court of Human Rights, potentially holding up the extradition process for months.
# # #
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Lawyers for Julian Assange on Tuesday challenged the UK Supreme Court's decision to extradite the WikiLeaks founder to Sweden to face sexual assault charges.
Assange - who denies the accusations - is concerned that extradition to Sweden could ultimately lead to his eventual transfer to the United States.
The 40-year-old Australian lost his appeal against a lower court's ruling on May 30th.
Assange's lawyer argued last that the court's ruling had been based on a legal point that had not been argued in court in February, preventing his defense lawyers from presenting a defense.
If that argument is accepted, then the UK's top court will re-open Assange's appeal.
If not, then Assange will have seven days to challenge the ruling at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France - his last legal recourse to halt his extradition.
Reopening a UK Supreme Court case after a ruling has been made is virtually unheard-of, and legal experts in London say it would be a major embarrassment for Britain's most senior judges.
"It would be very damaging for their reputation," Julian Knowles, a lawyer with London's Matrix Chambers, told The Associated Press late last month.
* * *
Reutersreports:
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has appealed against Britain's Supreme Court's decision to back his extradition to Sweden over alleged sex crimes.
Two weeks ago, judges at Britain's top court rejected his argument by a 5-2 majority that a European arrest warrant for his extradition was invalid, seemingly putting an end to an 18-month legal battle.
However, his lawyers argued that some of the judges had reached their decision based on a legal point that had not been argued in court, preventing the defense team from making a counter-submission.
The court agreed to give Assange 14 days to challenge the decision and a spokeswoman said on Tuesday that an appeal had been submitted.
"No time has been set to look at the evidence," the spokeswoman said. "We are hoping it will be done promptly." [...]
His lawyers argue the European arrest warrant was invalid because it was issued by a prosecutor and not a judge or a court, as required in Britain. Prosecutors say different legal procedures are allowable under the internationally agreed format.
Even if he loses the appeal in Britain, the Australian could take his case to the European Court of Human Rights, potentially holding up the extradition process for months.
# # #
Lawyers for Julian Assange on Tuesday challenged the UK Supreme Court's decision to extradite the WikiLeaks founder to Sweden to face sexual assault charges.
Assange - who denies the accusations - is concerned that extradition to Sweden could ultimately lead to his eventual transfer to the United States.
The 40-year-old Australian lost his appeal against a lower court's ruling on May 30th.
Assange's lawyer argued last that the court's ruling had been based on a legal point that had not been argued in court in February, preventing his defense lawyers from presenting a defense.
If that argument is accepted, then the UK's top court will re-open Assange's appeal.
If not, then Assange will have seven days to challenge the ruling at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France - his last legal recourse to halt his extradition.
Reopening a UK Supreme Court case after a ruling has been made is virtually unheard-of, and legal experts in London say it would be a major embarrassment for Britain's most senior judges.
"It would be very damaging for their reputation," Julian Knowles, a lawyer with London's Matrix Chambers, told The Associated Press late last month.
* * *
Reutersreports:
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has appealed against Britain's Supreme Court's decision to back his extradition to Sweden over alleged sex crimes.
Two weeks ago, judges at Britain's top court rejected his argument by a 5-2 majority that a European arrest warrant for his extradition was invalid, seemingly putting an end to an 18-month legal battle.
However, his lawyers argued that some of the judges had reached their decision based on a legal point that had not been argued in court, preventing the defense team from making a counter-submission.
The court agreed to give Assange 14 days to challenge the decision and a spokeswoman said on Tuesday that an appeal had been submitted.
"No time has been set to look at the evidence," the spokeswoman said. "We are hoping it will be done promptly." [...]
His lawyers argue the European arrest warrant was invalid because it was issued by a prosecutor and not a judge or a court, as required in Britain. Prosecutors say different legal procedures are allowable under the internationally agreed format.
Even if he loses the appeal in Britain, the Australian could take his case to the European Court of Human Rights, potentially holding up the extradition process for months.
# # #
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.