Julian Assange Must Wait For Supreme Court Decision

Julian Assange

First Posted: 2/02/2012 20:00 Updated: 3/02/2012 07:34

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange must wait to hear whether he has won the latest round of a legal battle against extradition after a Supreme Court hearing on Thursday.

Assange, 40, had asked the UK's highest court to block his removal to Sweden, where he faces sex crime allegations.

A panel of seven judges today reserved judgment after hearing legal argument from lawyers representing Assange and Swedish prosecutors at a two-day hearing in London.

Assange, 40, hopes to overturn a High Court ruling that it would not be unfair or unlawful to extradite him.

A key legal question before the Supreme Court justices was whether a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued against him by a Swedish public prosecutor was valid under extradition legislation.

The Swedish authorities want Assange to answer accusations of "raping" one woman and "sexually molesting and coercing" another in Stockholm in August 2010 while on a visit to give a lecture.

Assange, whose WikiLeaks website has published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments and international businesses, says the sex was consensual and the allegations against him are politically motivated.

In November 2011, the High Court upheld a ruling by District Judge Howard Riddle - who sat at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court, south London, in February 2011 - that the Australian computer expert should be extradited to face investigation.

If the Supreme Court rejects his appeal it will mark the end of his lengthy legal battle in the UK, but it will still be open to him to ask the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to intervene.

Assange burst into the public consciousness in April 2010 when WikiLeaks released Collateral Murder - video footage of a US air crew shooting Iraqi civilians in 2007.

Assange left the Supreme Court building without commenting to journalists.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange must wait to hear whether he has won the latest round of a legal battle against extradition after a Supreme Court hearing on Thursday. Assange, 40, had asked the UK...
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange must wait to hear whether he has won the latest round of a legal battle against extradition after a Supreme Court hearing on Thursday. Assange, 40, had asked the UK...
Filed by David Hobbs  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 22
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:47 AM on 02/03/2012
Sweden is pathetic. I'm sure feminist LOVE Sweden.. what next look at a woman funny and it's r@pe??
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nete peedham
12:31 AM on 02/03/2012
This whole thing is crooked. Consider, that Assange has not tried to escape custody. The Swedes, under the blatantly obvious circumstances, could have gotten an agreement with Britain to have their police question Assange...and try him by internet communications.
All that they want to do is get Assange and send him to the US.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:12 AM on 02/03/2012
Trial be internet? How would that work exactly? That would be one hell of an international precedent.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:59 AM on 02/03/2012
Not "trial" -- just questioning. (Remember: he hasn't actually been charged with anything)
He offered to undergo this questioning at a police station in the UK in person or by video link.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nete peedham
02:05 PM on 02/03/2012
Under international agreements, various countries accept that each other's system of justice will be fair. So, Assange appears in a room, with his lawyer, camera, and microphones. He could be 'sworn in' by a clerk. The judge, prosecutor, and witnesses in Sweden would see and talk to him, he, in turn, would see and talk to the prosecutor and witnesses in Sweden. If he's convicted, he could serve time in Britain.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
10:27 PM on 02/02/2012
Will he be extradited? Almost certainly.
10:03 PM on 02/02/2012
The main concern is not the charges, which probably won't stick, but being held in Sweden where the Americans can extraditing him from.

Why can't the Swedish present the evidence here? I thought we were all supposed to be in Europe together.

Pressure on the UK government from the US will probably seal his fate.
12:33 AM on 02/03/2012
The AMericans could extradite him from here, very easily by simply asserting (with fact and truth on their side) that Assange has deliberately breached US copyright laws. We are already in the process of extraditing to the USA one man, who hasn't even publiched material in breach of copyright, but who is deemed to have committed a criminal offence simply by directing otehrs to the material.

Assange on the other hand has deliberately published material without permission. So he would be easy to extradite, and once there, could be chraged with anything. Yet the USA is not making any attempt to do that. Why? Simple. They don't really want to prosecute him.
This comment has been removed.
10:00 PM on 02/02/2012
I don't think the accusations are "politically" motivated.
Both "victims" admit to consensual sex, and one continued to host him in her apartment apartment after the "offence". So it's not "rape" as UK law would have it.

Whether the way Sweden et al are handling it is political is a different matter.

I don't think Britain's record on extraditions looks so defensible at the moment.
It'd be nice if we asked for proof of an actual offence before we handed people over.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
10:28 PM on 02/02/2012
There has to be a plausible case. There is a plausible case. Sweden has a very functional legal system.
So.... very probably a case of `Seeya Mr Assange'.
12:36 AM on 02/03/2012
In Sweden, the law on rape is such that no conviction for rape can be obtained without an element of violence being present. "Consent" does not exist in the sam form in Swedish law as it does in the UK. For any prosecution to succeed, the prosecution would have to prove that Assange used violence.

So the bar is raised much higher in Swedish law than it is here in the UK, to prove rape. So since it is harder to prove, why is the Swedish prosecutor going to all that trouble to nab him?

"Both "victims" admit to consensual sex, and one continued to host him in her apartment apartment after the "offence". " This is Assange's propganda, not proven fact.
01:21 AM on 02/05/2012
It is doubtful that the prosecutor would issue a warrant that contained quotations of law that was inconsistent with the laws of Sweden. One accusation is that Assange used force of his weight. The second was that Assange started intercourse on a sleeping person. Both accusations amount to rape in my country, Australia, Britain, and Sweden.

Sweden like Australia and Britain recognizes that "consent" can be withdrawn during or before the act of consensual sex.

This is no way means that Assange has committed any crime, but the accusations amount to a crime. The prosecution still has to prove their case.

As part of issue the European Arrest Warrant the Swedish prosecutor had to issue the crimes that Assange is accused of under Swedish law, and the punishments for each offense. This is known, as the arrest warrant had to be returned to Sweden to rectify such deficiencies in the document.
photo
Reality always bites
Sometimes just a bit peckish
09:02 PM on 02/02/2012
If Assange thinks the charges against him in Sweden are politically motivated can he explain how WikiLeaks is not politically motivated?
Perhaps he should be given the chance to explain that in Sweden.
10:00 PM on 02/02/2012
So is what you are you trying to say here ???
photo
Reality always bites
Sometimes just a bit peckish
05:43 PM on 02/03/2012
What's good for the goose etc!