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/2012/feb/02/sweden-julian-assange-arrest

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Sweden followed normal procedure over Julian Assange arrest, court told Sweden followed normal procedure over Julian Assange arrest, court told
(about 3 hours later)
Sweden was right to allow its public prosecutor to demand the arrest of Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder wanted in connection with allegations including rape, the UK's supreme court has been told.Sweden was right to allow its public prosecutor to demand the arrest of Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder wanted in connection with allegations including rape, the UK's supreme court has been told.
The court heard that it was normal in Europe for prosecutors, rather than judges, to issue European arrest warrants.The court heard that it was normal in Europe for prosecutors, rather than judges, to issue European arrest warrants.
The claim came on the second day of Assange's two-day appeal to the highest court in the UK against being sent to Sweden to face allegations relating to sexual encounters he had with two women in Stockholm in August 2010.The claim came on the second day of Assange's two-day appeal to the highest court in the UK against being sent to Sweden to face allegations relating to sexual encounters he had with two women in Stockholm in August 2010.
Clare Montgomery QC, appearing for the Swedish Judicial Authority, told the panel of seven senior judges that there was no obligation of impartiality on the authority that requests extradition.Clare Montgomery QC, appearing for the Swedish Judicial Authority, told the panel of seven senior judges that there was no obligation of impartiality on the authority that requests extradition.
She told them this had never been the case and that Sweden was acting within European law. She told the judges that to rule otherwise "would be a remarkable departure as a matter of history from all that had gone before".She told them this had never been the case and that Sweden was acting within European law. She told the judges that to rule otherwise "would be a remarkable departure as a matter of history from all that had gone before".
The day began with Dinah Rose QC, acting for Assange, completing her case that the warrant was invalid because it breached "natural justice". The day began with Dinah Rose QC, acting for Assange, concluding her case by saying that the warrant was invalid because it breached "natural justice".
She argued that the Swedish prosecutor was a party in the Assange case and therefore not independent and impartial, breaching the principle that "no one should be judge in their own cause".She argued that the Swedish prosecutor was a party in the Assange case and therefore not independent and impartial, breaching the principle that "no one should be judge in their own cause".
Montgomery set out her case that public prosecutors were allowed to request extradition through European arrest warrants as a "judicial authority". She mounted a detailed examination of the drafting of the European extradition law and its requirement of a "authorité judiciaire" authority to issue arrest warrants. Montgomery said public prosecutors were allowed to request extradition through European arrest warrants as a "judicial authority". She mounted a detailed examination of the drafting of the European extradition law and its requirement of an "authorité judiciaire" to issue arrest warrants.
"It is quite clear that included in the natural, continental meaning [of authorité judiciaire] public prosecutor," she said. "It is quite clear that included in the natural, continental meaning [of authorité judiciaire is] public prosecutor," she said.
Montgomery attacked "all this rhetoric" by Assange's legal team "that suggests our construction makes the issuing of an arrest warrant a judge-free zone because in each case there will be an underlying court decision".Montgomery attacked "all this rhetoric" by Assange's legal team "that suggests our construction makes the issuing of an arrest warrant a judge-free zone because in each case there will be an underlying court decision".
She said 11 European states have decreed that prosecutors would issue arrest warrants and that nine said they would only use them, adding that prosecutors are more likely to take into account whether a European arrest warrant is proportional than a court would do. She said 11 European states had decreed that prosecutors would issue arrest warrants and that nine had said they would only use prosecutors to do so. She argued that prosecutors were more likely than a court to take into account whether a European arrest warrant was proportional.
Montgomery said it was clear that different countries defined authorities capable of requesting arrest warrants differently. In Finland it includes the ministry of justice, in Denmark "public prosecution authorities", in Germany "competent judicial authorities" and in Sweden the "prosecutor general or any other prosecutor". Montgomery said it was clear that different countries defined authorities capable of requesting arrest warrants differently. In Finland it included the ministry of justice, in Denmark "public prosecution authorities", in Germany "competent judicial authorities" and in Sweden the "prosecutor general or any other prosecutor".
Montgomery commented that the Europe-wide agreement was "done at great speed, coming as it did on the heels of 9/11".Montgomery commented that the Europe-wide agreement was "done at great speed, coming as it did on the heels of 9/11".
The judges asked what human rights protections flowed from her interpretation. "Arrest normally starts with a partial decision," Montgomery said.The judges asked what human rights protections flowed from her interpretation. "Arrest normally starts with a partial decision," Montgomery said.
"The English arrest warrant issued by a court is very much the exception. The protection [of human rights] lies in the requirement thereafter to provide him with an impartial tribunal. There is nothing to suggest a human rights construct requires you to impose impartiality on anybody seeking arrest.""The English arrest warrant issued by a court is very much the exception. The protection [of human rights] lies in the requirement thereafter to provide him with an impartial tribunal. There is nothing to suggest a human rights construct requires you to impose impartiality on anybody seeking arrest."
The case continues. Montgomery insisted that the term judicial authority "has a wide meaning". "It requires that because it serves the international purpose of being capable of allowing a system that does not have harmonious practices and procedures."
Rose was given just over an hour to make a final response. She said that far from each country seeing the concept of judicial authority differently, it was a "core term" in Europe that had been defined in the convention on human rights and had been tested in the courts.
It had to mean "independent of the executive" and independent of parties to the case, she said.
The conclusion of submissions represented the end of a series of legal hearings since Assange was arrested in December 2010 and could be the last time his case is heard in a British court.
The supreme court judges retired to consider their judgment, which will be reserved for what is expected to be several weeks. If they decide to uphold the high court ruling, Assange could be sent to Sweden for questioning within days.