I have carefully read the entire judgements (including the dissenting ones) of the Supreme Court, dismissing Assange’s appeal against extradition. The appeal was on the narrow point of law that the Swedish Prosecutor was not a “Judicial Authority”, but rather a party to the case, and only a “judicial authority” can issue a European arrest warrant. That may sound dull. I hope to convince you it isn’t.
Eurosceptics are not the most natural supporters of Julian Assange, but they should be deeply disturbed by aspects of this judgement. So should anyone with a regard for personal liberty. Some of the points laid down by the majority judges are truly shocking.
Please read this part of Lord Kerr’s judgement. I suggest you read it several times.
117. It would be destructive of the international co-operation between states to
interpret the 2003 Act in a way that prevented prosecutors from being recognised
as legitimate issuing judicial authorities for European Arrest Warrants, simply
because of the well-entrenched principle in British law that to be judicial is to be
impartial.
So the idea of an impartial judiciary is less important than obeying EU instruments, for which “international cooperation” is in this case a euphemism.
All of the judges accept that in ordinary English “Judicial authority” means a judge and a court, and not a prosecutor.
Lord Kerr says quite specifically:
101. The expression “judicial authority”, if removed from the extradition (or,
more properly, surrender) context, would not be construed so as to include
someone who was a party to the proceedings in which the term fell to be
considered. A judicial authority must, in its ordinary meaning and in the contexts
in which the expression is encountered in this jurisdiction other than that of
surrender, be an authority whose function is to make judicial decisions.
But Kerr then goes on to say that only in the context of European surrender/extradition, “judicial authority” should be understood in a way that is absolutely contrary to its normal English meaning. In a cavalier way Kerr dispenses with a fundamental principle of English Law for centuries, that words are to be construed in their ordinary sense – which every law student in the land learns in week 1 of their course.
The majority all rested their dismissal of the appeal on the grounds that the parliamentary Act of 2003 must be interpreted in line with the EU decision or “Framework Agreement” which it was created to implement. They specifically state that where there is conflict the EU Framework Agreement must take precedence over British law.
What follows is absolutely astonishing. The Framework Agreement in its English version specifically states, in Article 1, that the European Arrest Warrant must be issued by a “judicial decision”.
That really can only mean a court – it cannot mean a prosecutor on any construction.
Lord Philips seeks to get round this by a morally disgusting piece of legal casuistry. He states in terms that the French text should be followed and not the English (para 56 of the judgement). He argues: “The French version is the original and is to be preferred”.
But that contravenes an important and long established principle of international diplomacy. I have personally negotiated in both the EU and the UN and the essential and fully stated principle is that all official language texts have an equal validity. There is no “preferred original”. Lord Philips is just getting over an insuperable obstacle to his argument.
Having argued that the French text must be used and not the english text, Philips returns to the argument on which the whole judgement rests; that the French text is to be preferred to the English and that “judiciaire” has a more “vague” meaning than “judicial” (para 18). He rests this argument on a 1996 French dictionary and a google search.
Even if we accept that judiciaire has a vaguer meaning than judicial, the principle of interpreting international agreements based on the vaguest meaning of each of the individual words between the official languages would dissolve international law into inanity. There is a strong argument that where there is a conflict between languages the more precise and narrow formulation should be taken to be the most that can fairly be said to have been agreed by all.
The truth is that Philips and his fellow judges live in the real world, and were more concerned to please both the EU and the US by getting Assange extradited on charges that would not stand any genuine judicial investigation.
Assange is to be extradited on the argument that the British Act is subordinate to the European Framework, and that the english text of that is subordinate to the French text.
It is not surprising they dismissed an independent judiciary as unimportant. They are not one.
“If the state sets out to get you, it will”
meh. there are surely much more important things to never forget than the possibility of being squashed by higher powers for doing the right thing.
It doesn’t follow that Assange will actually be charged with any offence in Sweden.
.
It’s extraordinary the number of people who think, and one can forgive them for this, as it’s the impression one gets from the media, that Assange is wanted for the charge of rape in Sweden and that’s why the Swedes want to extradite him, to answer these charges, and this is why they decided to issue a European Arrest Warrant.
.
However, there are no formal legal charges against Assange at all. He hasn’t been charged with anything by the Swedish authorites. The Swedes, supposedly, only want to interview him in connection with serious alligations about sexual misconduct of various types, based on interviews they carried out with two women, none of whom allege that they were “raped” by Assange.
.
It’s odd that the Swedes contend that Assange’s alleged actions are so serious that they require his extradition from the UK to be interviewed, but, at the same time they don’t think his actions, or their evidence that any crime has infact taken place is strong enough to issue a warrant for his arrest or issue charges. This seems somewhat paradoxical to me.
.
With what appear such a weak case, it’s amazing that the Swedish prosecutor has invested so much time and energy in this affair. People assume Assange will, is returning to stand trial in Sweden, but this isn’t certain. The poor chap hasn’t even been charged with anything, so assuming he’s going to stand trial is jumping the gun somewhat!
.
As there are no witnesses, sex-tapes, or physical evidence about what happened in the privacy of the bedroom between Assange and these women, how on earth does one prove in a court of law that any crime occured? It’s Assange’s version of events versus the woman involved. Is Assange likely to admit to any crime during questioning, or do the Swedes believe they can get him on a technicality, trip him up, into admitting to some sexual act, or behaviour, that under Sweden’s fiendishly complex sex laws, ammounts to a form of rape?
.
Will, if there’s a trial, which isn’t certain, it all ammount to who the judges believe is telling the truth about what happened in the privacy of the bedroom during consensual sex between two people who barely know each other, tastes, and sexual behaviour patterns. How does one establish under these circumstances, who is telling the truth and whose version of events is accurate?
Damn! I did it again, forgot the flippin’ paragraph thingy, sorry!
.
http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/the-leveson-inquiry-into-the-british-press-oh-what-a-lovely-game
.
I love the man, agree with what he says and the style of his writing.
Through Assange’s politcal traverses it is now slowly dawning on us that European law subordinates all others, thats any prosecutor can make it work for them and that judges have become redundant so it seems, we have French laws to quote after all.
.
Tris, as long as Scotland stays in Europe its laws will be subject to the same subordination, and despite the EU courts overflowing with a backlog of cases, making justice a wishfull thinking in an uncetrtain future, this will stay as it is, unless the SNP and Greens have something up their sleeves.
.
“If the state sets out to get you, it will”
WEll yes, unless you are an Afghan with a Kalashnikov and a few hundred equally determined fellow fighters. If Assange is an example to the politisation of the swedish judicial system, with brownie points garnered by their prosecutor, then so is the successfull lon term resistance of Afghans to the invasion of their country by the third empire.
.
So EU law supersseds our national laws and is used by swedish prosecutors for an ‘interview’ of a possible suspect. Assange is Australian, afaik, so if he would be ‘wanted by another EU state, for non paying of parking fines, or toher, then this should superseed any other extradition request from outside, going by the original french text. By this hirarchy, EU law would superseed any extradition agreements with a country outside the EU, and Sweden would have no say in this.
.
Unless thwere are extradition laws which have bee agreed globally to superseed all other, in which case the US, with regards to their own soldiers/citizens falling under such laws, would have opted out of them, making them wholly inapropriate to use, a one way street.
.
This whole affair is disgusting to watch and it is spun one way. Lets hope RT, using its own spin, can take this EU edifice apart, it can not be done by Julian himself.
Actually I think this whole process is absurd. And to say that this is a human rights issue is just laughable. What this whole debate has been about is Assange trying to find some way to avoid geting extradited to face charges. Then a bunch of his supporters have tried to fabricate som form of conspiracy. Mostly by trying to question the swedish legal system.
This situation here is an obvious example. Were the question is simply a mater of procedure. In this case when we talk about the arrest warent. The Swedish system is such that a prosecutor issues an arrest warent and this will stand unless challenged. If challenged then the court will decide if the warent should stand. In the case of Assange this has happened. And the warent has been upheld twice. So the swedish court has judged in this case, twice.
The only question in this case has been wether or not UK should follow their international obligations through signed treaties or if the court should strike down a law based on a possible bad choice of word. There has never been a question about the swedish prosecutor being a judicial authority as it was defined according to the treaty.
Where oh where has Werritty gone? He’s missing the Jubilee.
.
http://politicalscrapbook.net/virals/liam-fox-business-card/
Just another day at the office at top of civil service
Sir Jeremy Heywood assured MPs that everything is rosy with bosom pal Sir Bob Kerslake
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/public-leaders-network/2012/may/25/jeremy-heywood-bob-kerslake?newsfeed=true
Sorry to high-jack this thread, but there is an article at the Herald detailing the contents of a secret goverenment report on Lockerbie.
“The highly classified document, which has never even been aired in public or shared with the courts, originally came from Jordan and indicates that a Palestinian terrorist group was involved in the bombing that killed 270 people – something the UK Government has vehemently denied.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/how-uk-government-hid-secret-lockerbie-report.17751710
Neither the BBC or any other news organisation is running with it showing how sensitive this is.
Hows the weather in occupied Palestine Geomannie
and how are the killings of children and innocent occupantees going, geomannie?
Hmm and then, Geomannie, there is evidence that points to the involement of more sophisticated, what a sick word, powers at work, the CIA perhaps. Do we now disregard it?
Have you looked at the comments on that Herald piece? I almost prefer the Times readership’s opinions.
.
The Herald is owned by Newsquest, an offshoot of the US press conglomerate Gannett.
Judging from this list I would judge that Israel’s interests are foremost.
.
http://www.gannett.com/section/WHOWEARE01
.
From: The Coverage and Non-Coverage of Israel-Palestine
Written by Alison Weir {http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/news/mediabias/item/569-coverage}
.
My own personal experiences with newspaper chains have been illuminating.
.
A few years ago a reporter from the Gannett newspapers planned to do an article about me and If Americans Knew, which had just begun operating. Gannett is one of the largest news outlets in the nation, with 102 daily newspapers in the United States, including USA Today, the nation’s largest-selling daily newspaper, for a combined daily paid circulation of 7.6 million readers. Gannett also owns a variety of non-daily publications and USA WEEKEND, a weekly newspaper magazine of 22.7 million circulation delivered in more than 600 Gannett and non-Gannett newspapers. As if this weren’t enough, Gannett also owns and operates 21 television stations covering almost 20 percent of the country.
.
Needless to say, a Gannett article about our fledgling organization was quite exciting. He interviewed me at considerable length about my experiences in the West Bank and Gaza, sent out a photographer to take pictures of me at home, and directed her to Fed Ex them immediately.
.
Then we waited. After a few months, I e-mailed him to ask if I’d missed the piece. He e-mailed back, no I hadn’t missed it. The article had been shelved: “… the top guy here feels like the story is ‘missing’ something.” The article, apparently, is still on the shelf.
.
{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gannett} Revenue $5.4 billion Income just under $1 billion
“Hows the weather in occupied Palestine Geomannie”
“and how are the killings of children and innocent occupantees going, geomannie?”
You miss my point, unless you mean to.
I was alluding to the fact that the UK government have suppressed a report that casts doubt as to the perpetrators of the Lockerbie bombing, and would have been highly relevant to the Camp Zeist trial.
That ‘Future of the USA’ article is quite possibly the most wrong-headed thing I’ve ever read. It seems to have no grasp on the formation of the ‘national security state’ and completely ignores the fact that on foreign policy, the two parties have not been this close since the Cold War. At home, it mistakes the fractiousness deliberately cultivated through ‘the culture wars’ for a bug rather than a feature. The policy is divide and rule and it’s working brilliantly.
re Lockerbie think most of the information including docs is herehttp://www.scribd.com/stax68/d/52409411-Lockerbie-The-Flight-From-Justice-Paul-Foot-Private-Eye-Special-Report
http://www.scribd.com/stax68/d/52409411-Lockerbie-The-Flight-From-Justice-Paul-Foot-Private-Eye-Special-Report
Viktor “So the swedish court has judged in this case, twice.”
.
Isn’t that the point being made here? The extradiction request has not come from a Swedish Court but from a prosecutor.
.
And fortunately, when it comes to applying the rule of law, the meaning of words is everything. Defining words arbitrarily, as Lord Kerr seems to be doing,is something that happens in totalitarian states not democratic ones.
geomannie, sorry then.
Chienfou, yes and my point is that this is just a question of procedure no a human rights issue. In UK the prosecutor request a warent from a judge who issues it. In Sweden the prosecutor issus the warent and this can then be challenged and at which point a judge will decide if the warent should stand or not.
And yes I agree that the meaning of the word is important. Which is why this is an absurd diskussion. Because the meaning of a word always depend upon its context. And in this context the meaning of these words have always been clear. What Assanges lawyers wanted to do was to apply the meaning of the words in a different context to change the meaning and intention of the law and the treaty.
Victor, what prevents the prosecutor iterviewing him at the Swedish embassy in London? If this case warrants an EAW, such an important issue as it is made out by your judges, not political at all, then why not take that opportunity to proceed the case, it was offered by the accused?
MI6 went and interviewed Cdr. Belhadj, when he was imprisoned and tortured in Libya, they showed an interest in his obviously important case, so they’d been told, only to find out that he survived and has now turned the tables on them and Jack Straw, suing them for wrong detention and torture, but they went to Libya to do it.
Why is the Swedish prosecutor recitant, why is she prolonging the case and subsequent media circus, further increasing the ‘conspiracy’ as you called it, over fears that Sweden will extradite him?
If it is not complicated and staright forward why not come here and do it, over and done with.
Why choose this strenuous means to prolong the agony?
Two war criminals on our screens in one week. Bliar Monday and tonight Alastair Campbell, the spindoctor of the false dossier fame, is the host on Have I Got News For You. Why do Hislop and Merton go along with it? BBC 1 9.30
.
“Why do Hislop and Merton go along with it?”
.
I heard a few years ago that they each get £25,000 a show. If so,theres 25,000 reasons for you ?.
Hillary Clinton now in Norway. Due to go to Stockholm for a one-day visit Sunday.
Mass unemployment. Hopeless youth. Riots. Austerity – and the IMF telling us how much to spend and what to spend it on. Oh, and the Queen, making us all feel good even though we’re swimming in shite. At least the bankers weren’t such a pernicious force in 1977. We should have made this song Number 1. Let’s download it and make it so. There’s no future in England’s dreaming.
God save the queen
The fascist regime
They made you a moron
Potential H-bomb
God save the queen
She ain’t no human being
There is no future
In England’s dreaming
Don’t be told what you want
Don’t be told what you need
There’s no future, no future,
No future for you
God save the queen
We mean it man
We love our queen
God saves
God save the queen
‘Cause tourists are money
And our figurehead
Is not what she seems
Oh God save history
God save your mad parade
Oh Lord God have mercy
All crimes are paid
When there’s no future
How can there be sin
We’re the flowers in the dustbin
We’re the poison in your human machine
We’re the future, your future
God save the queen
We mean it man
We love our queen
God saves
God save the queen
We mean it man
And there is no future
In England’s dreaming
No future, no future,
No future for you
No future, no future,
No future for me
No future, no future,
No future for you
No future, no future
For you
Nevermind: Well nothing prevents prosecutor from interviewing him at the Swedish embassy in London. Except that the prosecutor dosen’t just want to interview Assange but also wants to formally make him a suspect of the crime, a process that in the swedish juridical process is the first step in order to bring charges to someone. At which point Assange will also get access to all the evidence against him. Since this is done in order to bring him to trial it is rather obvious that the prosecutor would want to get Assange to sweden in order for this to happen. i mean this whole process is meant to bring him before a court which will be able to decide if he is guilty of the crimes he is being accused of or if he isn’t.
Excellent Mike. The BBC’s Witchell actually spoke to Republic’s
Graham Smith who was allowed a few seconds of airtime as opposed to the thousands of hours of propaganda we have been subjected to.
.
http://www.republic.org.uk/index.php
We have not forgotten Bradley Manning still languishing under Obama’s heel and being subjected to a secret court martial.
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/24/bradley-manning-military-trial-wikileaks?newsfeed=true
Thanks Victor, Personally I find this wholly unacceptable given the rabid noises made by a plethora of US politicians, lawyers and media outlets, they are baying for his blood.
Swedens extradition laws with the US should not have precedence over this case and unless Sweden recognises that the US does not recognise the EU’s ICC and effectively operates a one sided extradition treaty that shields its own citizens from due justice for crimes committed in Europe, and there are many examples of it, Julian should not be handed over to Sweden.
Sweden is either a European country with integrity, or it follows the bad example set by the US. I rest my case.