Assange wins latest round of legal battle to appeal extradition

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Wikileaks founder Assange wins latest round of legal battle to appeal extradition

LONDON, Dec. 5 (Xinhua) -- Wikileaks website founder Julian Assange won leave from the English High Court on Monday to ask the country's Supreme Court to examine his bid to avoid extradition from Britain to Sweden, where authorities want to question him about sexual assault charges raised by two women.

Assange, the 40-year-old Australian who runs the wikileaks website which has angered the U.S. authorities by publishing millions of secret diplomatic cables on the Internet, has been fighting a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued by authorities in Sweden for a year.

The Swedish authorities want to question Assange about an allegation of rape raised by one woman, and of sexual coercion by a second woman, which the two women claim happened on his visit to the Scandinavian country in 2010.

As he left the court Assange told waiting journalists, "The High Court has decided that an issue that arises from my own case is of general public importance and may be of assistance to other cases and should be heard by the Supreme Court. The long struggle for justice for me and for others continues."

Assange was critical of the extradition process, "Extradition safeguards are a concern to many people. There are many aggrieved families in Britain and in other countries in Europe who are struggling for justice."

Two leading judges in the High Court backed part of Assange's appeal. They said they would allow one of two questions posed by his lawyers to be put to the Supreme Court, because it was of sufficient public importance. The question is whether an EAW can be issued by a public prosecutor.

Assange argues that it cannot. The Supreme Court will now decide if it will hear Assange's case, but it is not under an obligation to do so.

Assange went into hiding in Europe after the allegations were made by the two women, fearing that his return to Sweden would lead eventually to his extradition to the United States to face the anger of the authorities over his publishing of the diplomatic cables.

He surrendered to police in London at the end of 2010, and was initially held in prison. After a series of court appearances Assange was granted bail, on strict conditions including a curfew and his agreement to live in a fixed place.

Throughout 2011 he has fought a high-profile and expensive battle through successively higher courts to avoid extradition, and has lost at each stage.

His legal options are now nearly exhausted, and Assange will be pinning his hopes on the Supreme Court agreeing to hear his case, and then on backing his appeal.

Assange now has 14 days to submit his written appeal to the Supreme Court and is now likely to remain in Britain until at least the early New Year.

Wikileaks founder Assange wins latest round of legal battle to appeal extradition
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
The WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, will run for a seat in Australia's senate despite being under house arrest in the UK and facing criminal allegations in Sweden.
The 40-year-old has criticised Julia Gillard's centre-left government for not defending him after WikiLeaks released thousands of classified US embassy cables in 2010. Australian police concluded that Mr Assange did not break any Australian laws by publishing the cables, although Ms Gillard condemned the action as "grossly irresponsible". Mr Assange has taken his legal battle against extradition to the supreme court, which is expected to deliver a judgment later this year.
Assange to stand for Australia's senate despite UK house arrest - Crime - UK - The Independent
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
There are so many questions surrounding this case it is hard to define any truth at all. For example
the Swedes would likely send him to America quicker than Britain under the circumstances and one
wonders if there is even a sexual case to begin with.
I don't agree with what these people did, but I don't think America should be empowered to be given
all those who they don't like or might have offended them. Because someone committed a US crime
from somewhere else in the world it doesn't mean they should be allowed to extradite them for trial
in America. If the person committed a crime in America that is different.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
There are so many questions surrounding this case it is hard to define any truth at all. For example
the Swedes would likely send him to America quicker than Britain under the circumstances and one
wonders if there is even a sexual case to begin with.
I don't agree with what these people did, but I don't think America should be empowered to be given
all those who they don't like or might have offended them. Because someone committed a US crime
from somewhere else in the world it doesn't mean they should be allowed to extradite them for trial
in America. If the person committed a crime in America that is different.
Not to mention the hypocrisy of protecting their own who commit crimes in other countries.
 

Kathie Bondar

Kathie Bondar
May 11, 2010
230
1
18
Calgary, Alberta
I wonder why the States are wanting him to come back to the States. Judging by the issue of the American soldier who shot a pile of kids and women, you'd think the US would want Assange to be tried in Oz (where he came from).
Because they want to protect their brand of freedom of speech, that's why.
I have a manuscript I am unable to publish, I know what it means to be muzzled and to what length the system will go to shut you up. But of course politicians come with an expiry date and eventually the truth does triumph. It's just a matter of time, sometimes centuries.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,400
1,667
113
According to The Wright Stuff last week, it's cost the British taxpayer around £10 million to guard that little dweeb in his little hidey hole where he has been cowering for almost the last three years (what the bloody hell has he been doing in there all that time?).

It's time just to send the cops into the Ecuadorean Embassy, nick him, and send him off to Sweden to stand trial. All this talk of embassies being the territory of the country they represent is a load of bollocks. The Ecuadorean Embassy is British soil, not Ecuadorean soil, and British police officers should have every right to go in there and arrest a suspected sex offender. I wish they'd just stop the piss farting about and send in the cops. What'll happen if they do?
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,400
1,667
113
Legally thats not true and its far from a new concept. You dont have to like it for it to be so.


The Ecuadorean Embassy is British territory, not Ecuadorean. It's not my fault that you and your little mislead chum believe the myth that foreign embassies are the sovereign territory of the country which they represent. And that's all it is - a myth. All embassies on British territory are British territory.

That little Assange fellow is on UK soil, not Ecuadorean soil. The Metropolitan Police should have gone in there back in the summer of 2012 and nicked the little scroat and sent him on his way to Sweden to stand trial in a court of law.
 
Last edited: