5 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
5 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

UK Supreme Court rejects Assange's final appeal

by MoneyMagnetMagnate
4 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
• WikiLeaks founder given 14 days to decide whether to ask supreme court to reopen the case

Julian Assange loses extradition case



*Final appeal document at bottom post -
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Thanks - very interesting indeed.

    I'm extremely surprised that the Supreme Court ruled by 5 votes to 2 that a public prosecutor is a "judicial authority".

    Since when are prosecutors judges?! :confused:

    Still, it appears there may be some further argument on the point. And that it may all turn out to be academic, perhaps, if Sweden re-issues the extradition warrant through a judge instead of through a prosecutor. (Why haven't they already done that?).

    It does seem, at least superficially, very strange for a prosecutor to be considered a "judicial" authority for these purposes? One point being that judges are independent, whereas prosecutors are very clearly "on one side"? Surprising stuff ...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6340653].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      Thanks - very interesting indeed.

      I'm extremely surprised that the Supreme Court ruled by 5 votes to 2 that a public prosecutor is a "judicial authority".

      Since when are prosecutors judges?! :confused:

      Still, it appears there may be some further argument on the point. And that it may all turn out to be academic, perhaps, if Sweden re-issues the extradition warrant through a judge instead of through a prosecutor. (Why haven't they already done that?).

      It does seem, at least superficially, very strange for a prosecutor to be considered a "judicial" authority for these purposes? One point being that judges are independent, whereas prosecutors are very clearly "on one side"? Surprising stuff ...
      We aren't really operating under rule of law anymore here, Alexa. They do about whatever it is that they feel like doing. Never know what that's going to be from day to day or from arrest to arrest.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6432865].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        We aren't really operating under rule of law anymore here, Alexa.
        So I've heard, sometimes ... but this is the UK's Supreme Court, in London, Sal. They're very independent, not political (or even politically motivated) appointees in any way, and effectively not removable by politicians.

        They have apparently accepted that a prosecutor (in Sweden) is considered a "judicial" authority for the purposes of construing the terms of an EU extradition treaty purely on the precedent that this has (often) been held acceptable in other European countries.

        This troubles me. I think it's bad law, and a bad precedent. Sweden should have issued their extradition request through a judge, not through a prosecutor, and the Supreme Court should have required them to do so, in my opinion.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6436549].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MoneyMagnetMagnate
    UK Supreme Court rejects Assange's final appeal

    Julian Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority - Application to re-open appeal
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6431606].message }}

Trending Topics