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' 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.
* * *
Reuters reports:
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.
# # #
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.
* * *
Reuters reports:
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.
* * *
Reuters reports:
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.