The decision to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to Sweden over sexual assault allegations has been deferred by the High Court after a two-day hearing.
The 40-year-old has been fighting a European arrest warrant issued by Swedish authorities, who want to question him over three allegations of sexual assault and one of rape against two women.
Assange has been on bail since December 2010. Since then, he has been under house arrest at a friend's mansion in Norfolk. On Sunday he celebrated his 40th birthday there, with a marquee in the mansion's 650 acres.
Wednesday's hearing hinged on a complex, at times academic, debate on the interpretation of European arrest warrants.
Mark Summers, a defence lawyer for Assange, argued that his client is suspected "with probable cause" in Sweden, but closed his defence case by reiterating arguments that the European arrest warrant issued by Sweden was invalid because Assange is only wanted for questioning and has not been charged.
Acting for the Swedish prosecution authority, Clare Montgomery QC argued that the arrest warrant for Assange was issued correctly. Montgomery led judges through examples of how different states press charges. The Guardian reported that even the judges were "overwhelmed" by the complexity of the issue.
At Tuesday's hearing, Assange's barrister, Ben Emmerson QC, claimed that his encounters with the two women who made complaints against him were consensual and would not be considered crimes in England.
Emmerson conceded that the women may have found Assange's behaviour "disreputable, discourteous, disturbing, or even pushing towards the boundaries of what they were comfortable with" but maintained it was not illegal.
Assange was uncharacteristically reserved, as his legal team followed a new 'quiet' approach to their defence strategy.
Previous lawyers for Assange had been vocal and warned that Assange could be deported to the United States and incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay.
His new lawyers were more guarded in their statements and Assange himself remained assiduously silent. He was greeted at the High Court with the usual press and supporters, but did not comment. At his previous appearances he was known to give lengthy press conferences claiming the allegations were politically motivated.
This is the last day of the hearing, but it is unlikely that there will be a ruling immediately.