Assange at the High Court: The Alexander Street Summary

Courtesy Flashback.

Get It Try It

I've browsed through the July appeal. It gives a clearer picture of the arguments of the new lawyers than we've seen up to now. My overall opinion is that Peirce and Emmerson have done a thorough job, they argue well, and they have strong arguments. (Stephens & Co look like amateurs in comparison.)

An important starting point is that the law applicable for extraditions is not the framework used in Europe for the EAW but the corresponding English law from 2003 which offers further legal protection. Five groups of objections are presented.

1. The description of the actions of the accused in the EAW must be, in accordance with English procedure, 'fair, proper, and accurate'. Otherwise the EAW is invalid. P & E point out that the descriptions Marianne Ny formulated aren't supported by what the complainants stated in their testimony and are not 'fair'.

2. The accusation concerning SW is a so-called 'list offence' which makes it easier to extradite, but the accusations concerning AA are not list offences. Extradition in such case is only possible if the alleged crime is punishable in England as well ('double criminality'). P & E claim this is not the case - not with accurate descriptions and not even with Ny's inaccurate descriptions.

3. English law does not allow extradition if 'prosecution has not commenced'. This is clear through - amongst other things - Ny's statements that this was not the case when the EAW was submitted, the pertinent point in time. The issue is whether the court play 'make believe' here. If the EAW clearly says 'prosecution has commenced' then the court normally has to assume this is correct and cannot take into account anything that contradicts this: the EAW system is dependent on two countries having confidence each other's judicial systems.

P & E interpellate here with a surprising argument re the 'lagföring' thing. Ny was namely accused of prevaricating with the EAW when she wrote that she wanted JA in Sweden for 'lagföring' - no charges had been filed. Judge Riddle found an 'expert witness' who affirmed that 'lagföring' can mean more than 'prosecution' - actually it's closer to 'legal proceedings'. But P & E say if the EAW only says extradition is sought for 'legal proceedings' which in this case indicates JA is sought for questioning and not for prosecution, then 'prosecution has not commenced'.

4. P & E argue as well that the objective of interrogating JA could have been achieved by means less intrusive than the EAW because JA offered to be interrogated and Mutual Legal Assistance could have been used, so Ny's actions are in violation of the European Convention article 52. (This is the same argument dismissed by the Svea court of appeals without motivation.)

5. English law states that an EAW shall be issued by a 'judicial authority', by which is meant an impartial instance such as a judge. Sweden seems rather alone in Europe in allowing prosecutors to issue EAWs. English courts have previously approved EAWs issued by Swedish prosecutors but the matter has not yet been tested at a higher instance, and P & E argue that the other courts have judged incorrectly (and that Sweden has acted incorrectly). This can become the basis for a further appeal to the highest instance, as the legal aspects are difficult and no precedents have yet been set.

Taken as a whole, the new lawyers are not less critical of Sweden and Marianne Ny than the old ones were, but they express their criticism in a more subtle manner.

See Also
Justice4Assange.com
Assange Defence Fund
WikiLeaks: Support WikiLeaks
The Police Protocol (Translated)
Rixstep: JA/WL (Assange/WikiLeaks)
Rixstep: Assange/WikiLeaks RSS Feed
Radsoft: Assange/WikiLeaks RSS Feed