The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

Judges retire to consider Assange’s last chance on extradition

Supreme Court is final shot for WikiLeaker-in-chief

Agentless Backup is Not a Myth

The UK Supreme Court judges have retired to consider their verdict in Julian Assange’s last shot at escaping extradition to Sweden, with a final verdict possible within weeks.

The two-day hearing has been focusing on whether the Swedish prosecutor who issued the European arrest warrant (EAW) had the right to do so. Clare Montgomery, the lawyer for the Swedish authorities, argued that the Swedes were perfectly within their rights to demand Assange’s extradition, and warned that the European arrest warrant system could collapse if the WikiLeaker-in-chief walks.

No impartiality in arrest warrants, Swedish team argue

“This argument proceeds upon the false premise that there is a constitutional principle that requires decisions to arrest to be made by an impartial judge and not by a party,” her filing reads. “This premise is false since as a matter of European, European Court of Human Rights, as well as UK law, arrests may be ordered and carried out by persons (such as police officers) who are not judges and who are not impartial.”

A denial of extradition would turn the EAW system on its head, she argued, and prevent EU member states from prosecuting laws properly within their borders. Assange’s lawyer Dinah Rose QC argued that an impartial member of the judiciary is needed for such a warrant.

Dinah Rose QC fights her case

“The court is grateful to counsel for their submissions and will reserve its judgment," said Lord Phillips. ®

What you need to know about cloud backup

Anonymous Coward

"arrests may be ordered and carried out by persons ... who are not impartial."

Impartiality not required.... so if a UK police officer doesn't like the French PM he could demand extradition without presenting any evidence?

Cool, lets start doing that.

17
3

In short, yes. Evidence is rarely presented at the point of arrest.

If you've ever seen an arrest take place, the UK Police Officer will state "I'm arresting you on suspicion of..." or "I have reason to believe..."

It is then up to the arresting officer to present the evidence to the custody officer to justify the arrest and continued detention or release on Police bail (or de-arrest and release).

There are very strict rules and penalties for officers who abuse their power of arrest, but legally they can arrest anyone at any time.

7
0
Anonymous Coward

I watched it televised over the Internet

Assange's barrister was much more assured and confident than the Swede's one.

She picked numerous holes in the Swede's case and was very impressive.

9
2

More from The Register

 breaking news
Number of cops abusing Police National Computer access on the rise
Only a telegram from the Queen can get you off it
 breaking news
NSA whistleblower to tech firms, Obama: 'Grow a pair!'
Ed Snowden: Email tracking grabs 'IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything'
 breaking news
Ecuador: All right, Julian, you CAN stay on our sofa - it's your human right
Minister and Wikileaker share cosy chat in tiny London flat
SCO vs. IBM battle resumes over ownership of Unix
Zombie lawsuit back and wants to suck the brains out of Linux
Google flings another £1m at online child sex abuse vid CRACKDOWN
See, see, we're trying, ad giant tells Daily Mail UK.gov
 breaking news
NSA PRISM-gate: Relax, GCHQ spooks 'keep us safe', says Cameron
Whatever they are up to, it's all above board, we're told
PRISM snitch claims NSA hacked Chinese targets since 2009
Snowden suddenly looks safer in Hong Kong after revelations
 breaking news
US chief spook: Look, we only want to spy on 6.66 BEELLLION of you
Americans assured they are not in the NSA's sights