This article is from the source 'bbc' 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.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18260914#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 3 | Version 4 |
|---|---|
| Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court | Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has lost his UK Supreme Court fight against extradition to Sweden to face accusations of sex offences. | Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has lost his UK Supreme Court fight against extradition to Sweden to face accusations of sex offences. |
| Lord Phillips, the court's president said he had lost by a majority of five justices to two. | Lord Phillips, the court's president said he had lost by a majority of five justices to two. |
| The court ruled the extradition request had been "lawfully made". | The court ruled the extradition request had been "lawfully made". |
| However, Mr Assange's lawyers have been given 14 days to consider challenging the ruling, saying it could have been reached unfairly. | However, Mr Assange's lawyers have been given 14 days to consider challenging the ruling, saying it could have been reached unfairly. |
| Dinah Rose QC, for Mr Assange, said the Supreme Court's decision could have been made on legal points not argued during the appeal - and she needed time to consider asking the court to reopen the case. | Dinah Rose QC, for Mr Assange, said the Supreme Court's decision could have been made on legal points not argued during the appeal - and she needed time to consider asking the court to reopen the case. |
| 'Judicial authority' | 'Judicial authority' |
| Mr Assange, who has been on conditional bail in the UK, did not attend the hearing in central London. His lawyer later told reporters he had been "stuck in traffic". | Mr Assange, who has been on conditional bail in the UK, did not attend the hearing in central London. His lawyer later told reporters he had been "stuck in traffic". |
| The role of judges in cases like Julian Assange's appeal is to listen to the points being put forward by both sides and decide who has the best argument. | The role of judges in cases like Julian Assange's appeal is to listen to the points being put forward by both sides and decide who has the best argument. |
| But Mr Assange's legal team are suggesting that didn't happen in this case. | But Mr Assange's legal team are suggesting that didn't happen in this case. |
| They appear to think he has lost his appeal because the judgement from the UK's highest court is based on a point which was neither heard nor argued in the case. | They appear to think he has lost his appeal because the judgement from the UK's highest court is based on a point which was neither heard nor argued in the case. |
| If this is so, the Supreme Court will find itself in the extraordinary position of having ruled against Mr Assange on a point that his lawyers did not have a chance to consider or respond to. | If this is so, the Supreme Court will find itself in the extraordinary position of having ruled against Mr Assange on a point that his lawyers did not have a chance to consider or respond to. |
| If true, that would mean the judgement is arguably unfair - and that is why in two weeks' time the court could be in the unprecedented position of having to reopen the case. | If true, that would mean the judgement is arguably unfair - and that is why in two weeks' time the court could be in the unprecedented position of having to reopen the case. |
| The 40-year-old Australian is accused of raping one woman and "sexually molesting and coercing" another in Stockholm in August 2010, but he claims the allegations against him are politically motivated. | The 40-year-old Australian is accused of raping one woman and "sexually molesting and coercing" another in Stockholm in August 2010, but he claims the allegations against him are politically motivated. |
| Mr Assange's lawyers had asked the court to block his removal, arguing that a European arrest warrant issued against him was "invalid and unenforceable". | Mr Assange's lawyers had asked the court to block his removal, arguing that a European arrest warrant issued against him was "invalid and unenforceable". |
| The key legal question for the seven judges was whether the prosecutor who issued the arrest warrant had the "judicial authority" to do so under the 2003 Extradition Act. | The key legal question for the seven judges was whether the prosecutor who issued the arrest warrant had the "judicial authority" to do so under the 2003 Extradition Act. |
| Lord Phillips said five of the justices agreed the warrant had been lawful because the Swedish prosecutor behind the warrant could be considered a proper "judicial authority" even if they were not specifically mentioned in legislation or international agreements. | |
| This point of law had not been simple to resolve, said Lord Phillips, and two of the justices, Lady Hale and Lord Mance, had disagreed with the decision. | This point of law had not been simple to resolve, said Lord Phillips, and two of the justices, Lady Hale and Lord Mance, had disagreed with the decision. |
| But Ms Rose immediately indicated she could challenge the judgement saying that it relied on a 1969 convention relating to how treaties should be implemented. She said this convention had not been raised during the hearing. | But Ms Rose immediately indicated she could challenge the judgement saying that it relied on a 1969 convention relating to how treaties should be implemented. She said this convention had not been raised during the hearing. |
| 'No argument' | 'No argument' |
| In a statement, the Supreme Court said: "Following this morning's judgment by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority, Ms Rose has indicated that she may make an application to re-open the court's decision. | In a statement, the Supreme Court said: "Following this morning's judgment by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority, Ms Rose has indicated that she may make an application to re-open the court's decision. |
| "Ms Rose suggested that the majority of the court appear to have based their decision on the interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, on which no argument was heard and no opportunity of making submission was given. | "Ms Rose suggested that the majority of the court appear to have based their decision on the interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, on which no argument was heard and no opportunity of making submission was given. |
| "The Supreme Court has granted Ms Rose 14 days to make such an application. If she decides to do so, the justices will then decide whether to re-open the appeal and accept further submissions either verbally through a further hearing, or on paper on the matter." | "The Supreme Court has granted Ms Rose 14 days to make such an application. If she decides to do so, the justices will then decide whether to re-open the appeal and accept further submissions either verbally through a further hearing, or on paper on the matter." |
| The decision to stay the extradition order means that it cannot become active until 13 June - but it would be further delayed were there to be additional submissions. | The decision to stay the extradition order means that it cannot become active until 13 June - but it would be further delayed were there to be additional submissions. |
| Mr Assange's Wikileaks website published material from leaked diplomatic cables embarrassing several governments. | Mr Assange's Wikileaks website published material from leaked diplomatic cables embarrassing several governments. |