Breaking: UK High Court Says WikiLeaks' Assange Can Continue Extradition Fight

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

LONDON (AP) -- A British court has given WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange permission to continue his legal battle to avoid extradition to Sweden over sex crimes allegations.

The decision means Assange does not face immediate deportation to Sweden.

Assange's lawyer Gareth Peirce says the judges accepted Assange's argument that there is a question over whether police and prosecutors are a judicial authority and should have the power to issue extradition requests under European law.

She said Monday that Assange now has 14 days to submit a written request to the Supreme Court.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WIKILEAKS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-05-04-56-52

[xchrom]

1. ok -- good. nt

[dipsydoodle]

2. DITTO

.

[dipsydoodle]

3. K & R

.

[caseymoz]

4. K&R

I wish things like this happened more often recently.

[KoKo]

5. K&R!

[avaistheone1]

6. k&r

:kick:

[harmonicon]

7. But once he's been accused it means he's definitely a rapist, right?

I learned that on DU in relation to Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

[SoapBox]

8. Cool!

[msanthrope]

9. Um, his request to appeal was denied by the High Court. He's being allowed to ask a 'certified'

question to the Supreme Court on a technical point---


"Surrounded by friends, including the campaigning journalist John Pilger, and a handful of supporters, Assange returned to the high court to hear Sir John Thomas, president of the Queen's bench division, and Mr Justice Ouseley deliver their ruling. The two judges refused to grant Assange right of appeal to the supreme court, but "certified" that on one specific point of law – of whether a prosecutor can be an impartial judicial authority – his case did raise a question of "general public importance" which the supreme court might wish to consider.

The ruling permits Assange to petition the supreme court directly within 14 days, to ask it to hear his appeal. There is no guarantee it will do so, but if the court agrees, a further appeal could see Assange's legal battle extend well into next year.

Snip

Should the supreme court refuse to allow Assange's appeal, he has an option to approach the European court of human rights, his lawyer Gareth Pierce indicated, though such an move would not stay his extradition."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/05/julian-assange-extradition-fight-supreme-court?newsfeed=true



The specific legal question is here--

"The question to be considered by the Supreme Court was whether the Swedish public prosecutor qualified as a judicial authority.
Mr. Assange’s lawyers maintain that public prosecutors are not judicial authorities and are therefore not entitled to sign arrest warrants."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/world/europe/julian-assange-renews-bid-to-avoid-extradition.html


This means that Assange has lost the argument that what he did isn't a crime under British law. He's lost the argument that what he did isn't a crime under Swedish law. He's lost the argument that he won't get a fair trial. He's lost the argument that the European Arrest Warrant process is illegal.

He's down to arguing that prosecutors should not be able to issue European Arrest Warrants.

Well, we shall see if the justices wish to bother with this.

[Hissyspit]

10. "What he did" ???