HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Agreed statements of fact...

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:28 PM

Agreed statements of facts and issues

... 11 ... on 27th August 2010, the counsel for SW and AA appealed the Chief Prosecutor’s decision to a Senior Prosecutor in Goteborg. On 1st September 2010 , that prosecutor (Marianne Ny) decided that: i. The Preliminary Investigation in respect of file K246314-10<SW> would be resumed, under the offence of ‘rape’ ...

14 ... On 21st September 2010, the prosecutor contacted the Appellant’scounsel by text message to ask whether the Appellant could be made available for an interrogation on 28th September 2010. The date was provisionally agreed ...

15. On 27th September 2010 , the Appellant’s counsel advised the prosecutor that he had been unable to contact the Appellant. The prosecutor stated that she would consider how to proceed. Later that day, the prosecutor ordered that the Appellant should be arrested.

17. On 30th September 2010, the Appellant’s counsel was advised of theexistence of the arrest warrant. He advised the prosecutor that the Appellant was by then abroad. The Appellant had left Sweden on 27th September 2010. The Appellant offered to return to Sweden for interview on Sunday 10th October or on any date in the week commencing 11th October 2010. The Sunday was rejected as inappropriate. The week commencing 11th October 2010 was later rejected as being too far away.

18. The Respondent believed that the Appellant was attending a lecture in Stockholm on 4th October 2010. Plans were made to detain him then but that information proved inaccurate.

19. Therefore, on 5th and 8th October 2010, the prosecutor again contacted the Appellant’s counsel to discuss possible appointments for interview. The Appellant’s counsel offered to speak to the Appellant about whether he would be able to attend on 14th October 2010 ...

21. On 12th October 2010, the Appellant’s counsel advised the prosecutor that he had been unable to contact the Appellant. The prosecutor indicated her intention to issue an EAW if the Appellant did not attend for interview ...

25. On 18th November 2010, the prosecutor applied to the Stockholm District Court for a detention order in absentia ...

26. On the same date, the Stockholm District Court granted the prosecutor’s application for a domestic detention order in absentia.

27. On 19th November 2010, the Appellant appealed that order to the Svea Court of Appeal.

28. On 24th November 2010, following written argument on behalf of the parties, in which it was argued on behalf of the Appellant that the domestic arrest was not proportionate and not based on sufficient evidence giving rise to probable cause, but without an oral hearing, the order was upheld by the Svea Court of Appeal ...

29. The prosecutor’s written submissions to the Svea Court of Appeal on 24th November 2010 confirmed that she was “…requesting the arrest of Assange is in order to enable implementation of the preliminary investigation…”.

30. On 26th November 2010, an EAW was issued by the prosecutor pursuant to the Council of the European Union Framework Decision ...

33. On 28th November 2010, the Appellant applied to the Supreme Courtfor permission to appeal the decision of the Svea Court of Appeal. On 2nd December 2010, that application was refused ...

37. On 6th December 2010, the EAW was certified by SOCA ...

40. The ‘extradition hearing’ took place before the Senior District Judge(Judge Riddle) at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (sitting atBelmarsh Magistrates’ Court) on 7th, 8th & 11th February 2011 ... On 24th February 2011, the Appellant’s extradition was ordered by the Senior District Judge ...

43. On 12th & 13th July 2011, the Appeal was heard before the High Court ...

44. The High Court considered four appeal grounds:
a. The EAW had not been issued by a "judicial authority".
b. The EAW did not meet the dual criminality test.
c. The Applicant was not an “accused” within the meaning of s.2(3) of the 2003 Act.
d. The issue of the EAW and subsequent proceedings were not proportionate ...

46. On 2nd November 2011, the High Court dismissed the appeal, pursuant to section 27(1)(b) of the 2003 Act. The Court held that:
a. The Swedish prosecutor was a judicial authority, because the term “judicial” was not limited to a judge who adjudicates and could also include a prosecutorial body, as envisaged by Article 6 of the Framework Decision (judgment §§20-54);
b. The offences in the EAW did meet the dual criminality requirement, having regard to ss.74, 75 and 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (§§55-127);
c. The Applicant was an “accused” person, applying the House of Lords’ decision in Re Ismail <1999> 1 AC 320 (§§128-154);
d. The decision to issue the warrant and the failure to take up the offer of video link questioning were not disproportionate (§§155-160) ...

47. On 5th December 2011, the High Court certified that the following point of law of general public importance was involved in its decision, pursuant to section 32(4)(a) of the 2003 Act: “…Whether a European Arrest Warrant (‘EAW’) issued by a public prosecutor is a valid Part 1 Warrant issued by a “judicial authority” within the meaning of sections 2(2) & 66 of the Extradition Act 2003? ...” ...

51. No grounds of appeal were left undetermined by the High Court.

The issues

52. Whether a public prosecutor is a judicial authority ...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case

Assange had his year and a half in the UK courts, to argue against his extradition as he saw fit, and the foregoing provides a summary of the case as it left the High Court and headed into the UK Supreme Court. Note that any hint of the bizarre fantasia about forward extradition had already been dropped at Belmarsh. Assange's lawyers chose to quibble in the High Court about minor technical points -- such as whether the Swedish prosecutor could issue an EAW, or whether Assange could properly be described as "an accused person" for the purposes of extradition proceedings. He had his days in court, and he lost his case there

1 replies, views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Reply to this thread