This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/feb/02/julian-assange-extradition-appeal-at-supreme-court-day-two-live-blog

The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Julian Assange extradition appeal at supreme court - day two live blog Julian Assange extradition appeal at supreme court - day two live blog
(40 minutes later)
10.48am: Montgomery resumes putting her case. 11.24am: Robert Booth adds:
Lord Phillips questioning whether in #Assange case there was any underlying court decision, as Montgomery says there must be
— Robert Booth (@Robert_Booth) February 2, 2012
11.23am: Robert Booth tweets:
Montgomery not claiming #Assange warrant system was "a judge free zone", rather there are underlying court decisions in every such case.
— Robert Booth (@Robert_Booth) February 2, 2012
11.12am: Phillips asks for a chronology of all the various incarnations of the European extradition agreements, which he says would be "enormously helpful". (I think it would probably be helpful for us too.)
11.06am: Referring to the replacement of the 1985 Schengen treaty's provisions on extradition by the EAW, Montgomery says it is hardly likely that countries that already used public prosecutors in this way should abandon that in a framework decision designed to speed up extradition and make it easier.
The Schengen agreement used the phrase "competent judicial authorities".
She lists countries that include public prosecutors in this definition. But Lord Phillips, the president of the supreme court, points out that some countries specifically separate judicial authorities "and other competent authorities", suggesting that for them prosecutors might not be part of judicial authorities. "There is no consistency," Phillips says.
To remind you, Assange's legal team is saying that a public prosecutor such as Sweden's is not a "judicial authority" in the way the EAW agreement intended, and so cannot issue a valid extradition warrant.
Montgomery is trying to show that public prosecutors have always been seen as part of the relevant "judicial authorities" in some European countries.
10.48am: Clare Montgomery resumes putting Sweden's case against Assange.
She wants to discuss the legislation and agreements that were replaced by the European arrest warrant (EAW) agreement in 2002.She wants to discuss the legislation and agreements that were replaced by the European arrest warrant (EAW) agreement in 2002.
In the 1957 European convention on extradition public prosecutors were explicitly made part of the "judicial authorities" who could ask for extradition, she says.In the 1957 European convention on extradition public prosecutors were explicitly made part of the "judicial authorities" who could ask for extradition, she says.
The EAW framework used the same French language phrase as the 1957 convention, Montgomery says.The EAW framework used the same French language phrase as the 1957 convention, Montgomery says.
10.40am: Dinah Rose, Julian Assange's QC, starts by reporting on some "homework" that the court had set her yesterday. She says Hansard shows that in the Commons and in the Lords it was made clear that the extradition bill - which became the Extradition Act 2003 - was amended to reflect the concerns of the Commons home affairs select committee that the bill should read "judicial authorities" rather than just "authorities".10.40am: Dinah Rose, Julian Assange's QC, starts by reporting on some "homework" that the court had set her yesterday. She says Hansard shows that in the Commons and in the Lords it was made clear that the extradition bill - which became the Extradition Act 2003 - was amended to reflect the concerns of the Commons home affairs select committee that the bill should read "judicial authorities" rather than just "authorities".
As mentioned, Montgomery was given a tougher time yesterday than Rose. Robert Booth notes that Montgomery also got a tougher time from the judges when she acted for Sweden in the high court - but she won that case.As mentioned, Montgomery was given a tougher time yesterday than Rose. Robert Booth notes that Montgomery also got a tougher time from the judges when she acted for Sweden in the high court - but she won that case.
10.31am: All rise as the supreme court justices file in to take their seats.10.31am: All rise as the supreme court justices file in to take their seats.
10.24am: Julian Assange, his legal team, Sweden's lawyers, and others, are all taking their places in the supreme court chamber now.10.24am: Julian Assange, his legal team, Sweden's lawyers, and others, are all taking their places in the supreme court chamber now.
9.26am: Today is the final day of Julian Assange's appeal to the supreme court against his extradition to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault.9.26am: Today is the final day of Julian Assange's appeal to the supreme court against his extradition to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault.
The WikiLeaks founder denies the allegations.The WikiLeaks founder denies the allegations.
Yesterday Assange's QC, Dinah Rose, put her case to the seven justices that because in Sweden a prosecutor requests an arrest warrant rather than a judge, that made the warrant Sweden issued against Assange invalid. She made a dense legal argument based on close textual analysis of the European arrest warrant agreements, the Extradition Act 2003 which incorporates that into British law, and the 1957 European convention on extradition which preceded it.Yesterday Assange's QC, Dinah Rose, put her case to the seven justices that because in Sweden a prosecutor requests an arrest warrant rather than a judge, that made the warrant Sweden issued against Assange invalid. She made a dense legal argument based on close textual analysis of the European arrest warrant agreements, the Extradition Act 2003 which incorporates that into British law, and the 1957 European convention on extradition which preceded it.
Here is a clip of Rose putting her case.Here is a clip of Rose putting her case.

Clare Montgomery, speaking for Sweden, began to put her side yesterday afternoon, taking issue with Rose's claims that the Swedish prosecutor could not be impartial and claiming that the authors of the European arrest warrant agreement had always intended that prosecutors as well as judges would seek warrants in many countries.

Clare Montgomery, speaking for Sweden, began to put her side yesterday afternoon, taking issue with Rose's claims that the Swedish prosecutor could not be impartial and claiming that the authors of the European arrest warrant agreement had always intended that prosecutors as well as judges would seek warrants in many countries.

Montgomery gave a much less confident performance than Rose, and came under harsher questioning from the justices. But it is unclear at this stage if Rose's arguments can get past the fact that the UK, through the European arrest warrant framework, does have an extradition agreement with Sweden, and has therefore already implicitly agreed to respect the way Sweden issues warrants for extradition.Montgomery gave a much less confident performance than Rose, and came under harsher questioning from the justices. But it is unclear at this stage if Rose's arguments can get past the fact that the UK, through the European arrest warrant framework, does have an extradition agreement with Sweden, and has therefore already implicitly agreed to respect the way Sweden issues warrants for extradition.
Here are some clips from Rose and Montgomery's submissions yesterday.Here are some clips from Rose and Montgomery's submissions yesterday.


Montgomery will complete her submission today, followed by a reply from Rose. The justices are then likely to take a few weeks to hand down their decision.


Montgomery will complete her submission today, followed by a reply from Rose. The justices are then likely to take a few weeks to hand down their decision.

The justices hearing the appeal are Lord Phillips, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr and Lord Dyson.The justices hearing the appeal are Lord Phillips, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr and Lord Dyson.
You can watch the proceedings live here. The hearing is due to start at 10.30am and go on till 4pm.You can watch the proceedings live here. The hearing is due to start at 10.30am and go on till 4pm.
Here is a great piece by my colleague Esther Addley giving the background to the case.Here is a great piece by my colleague Esther Addley giving the background to the case.
And this is my colleague Robert Booth's report on yesterday's hearing. He will be tweeting from the court again today.And this is my colleague Robert Booth's report on yesterday's hearing. He will be tweeting from the court again today.
Comments have not been switched on on this blog for legal reasons.Comments have not been switched on on this blog for legal reasons.