Law and Rights
By way of a short statement, the Supreme Court has dismissed the application made by Julian Assange that his case be re-opened on the basis that a majority of their Lordships had decided the case on a basis which had not been argued before the court.
The grounds of the application were that the majority of the Court decided the appeal on a ground that Ms Rose QC, Mr Assange?s counsel, had not been given a fair opportunity to address. That ground was that article 31(3)(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the principle of public international law expressed in that article rendered admissible State practice as an aid to the interpretation of the Framework Decision. When interpreting a treaty, Article 31(3)(b) permits consideration of "any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation; ..."
See the Supreme Court's announcement of 14th June 2012 and the earlier post on this blog of 30th May.
The seven Justices who
heard the appeal on 1-2 February 2012 and gave judgment on 30 May 2012 considered the appellant's written application. Whilst the decision of 30th May was by a majority, the rejection of the application to re-open was unanimous.
The Court ordered that, with the agreement of the respondent and pursuant to section 36(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, the required period for extradition shall not commence until the 14th day after today.
The terse wording of the rejection seems to indicate a degree of irritation with the whole application. The wording states: "Had Ms Rose been minded to challenge the applicability of the (Vienna) Convention, or the applicability of State practice as an aid to the construction of the Framework Decision, or the relevance and admissibility of the material relating to State practice, she had the opportunity to do so. She made no such challenge."The court added that the application was "without merit."
Ms Rose QC succeeded on one small point. Para 83 of the judgment referred to offences of which Mr Assange ?stands charged?. This was not accurate as charges had not actually been brought against Mr Assange. The judgment was to be corrected to read ?offences in respect of which his extradition is sought?.
The submission of written applications and the short statement of rejection is unsatisfactory since it does little to give real transparency to the judicial process. For instance, what were the detailed arguments put forward on Assange's behalf? It would have been good to know and also to have a detailed judgment as to why those arguments did not find favour with the court. It is via open justice - the ability of the public to know the arguments put to a court and the publication of judgments - that the integrity of the system of justice is assured.
It remains to be seen whether the matter rests here or whether there is some form of challenge on human rights grounds raised with the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg.
- An Interesting Question - What If Mr Assange Ever Got To Sweden?
Recommended reading: A post on the Pal Wrange blog is well worth reading on this subject and offers a similar view to that in my post below and also looks at whether Assange could now be extradited from the UK directly to the USA. --- Julian Assange...
- Julian Assange ~ Quo Vadis?
Update 1 : A statement has been issued by the Foreign Secretary - here. "The UK does not accept the principle of diplomatic asylum. It is far from a universally accepted concept: the United Kingdom is not a party to any legal instruments...
- European Dimension: A Trio Of Items
Rights of Defendants: The European Union has published factsheets on the Rights of Defendants in Criminal Proceedings. The Bar Council and Criminal Bar Association played a leading role in preparing the factsheet for England and Wales - (see Bar...
- Assange - European Arrest Warrants
Judgment has been handed down in Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin) - President of the Queens Bench Division (Sir John Thomas) and Ouseley J. It is interesting, for reasons which will become apparent, that the respondent...
- Julian Assange Extradition: Legal Aid: David Chaytor
Julian Assange has lost his extradition hearing at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court. An appeal is almost certain. The Guardian 24th February 2011. Previous posts looking at aspects of this case are: "How the EU continues to expand...
Law and Rights
Assange - Supreme Court rejects application to re-open
The grounds of the application were that the majority of the Court decided the appeal on a ground that Ms Rose QC, Mr Assange?s counsel, had not been given a fair opportunity to address. That ground was that article 31(3)(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the principle of public international law expressed in that article rendered admissible State practice as an aid to the interpretation of the Framework Decision. When interpreting a treaty, Article 31(3)(b) permits consideration of "any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation; ..."
See the Supreme Court's announcement of 14th June 2012 and the earlier post on this blog of 30th May.
The seven Justices who
heard the appeal on 1-2 February 2012 and gave judgment on 30 May 2012 considered the appellant's written application. Whilst the decision of 30th May was by a majority, the rejection of the application to re-open was unanimous.
The Court ordered that, with the agreement of the respondent and pursuant to section 36(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, the required period for extradition shall not commence until the 14th day after today.
The terse wording of the rejection seems to indicate a degree of irritation with the whole application. The wording states: "Had Ms Rose been minded to challenge the applicability of the (Vienna) Convention, or the applicability of State practice as an aid to the construction of the Framework Decision, or the relevance and admissibility of the material relating to State practice, she had the opportunity to do so. She made no such challenge."The court added that the application was "without merit."
Ms Rose QC succeeded on one small point. Para 83 of the judgment referred to offences of which Mr Assange ?stands charged?. This was not accurate as charges had not actually been brought against Mr Assange. The judgment was to be corrected to read ?offences in respect of which his extradition is sought?.
The submission of written applications and the short statement of rejection is unsatisfactory since it does little to give real transparency to the judicial process. For instance, what were the detailed arguments put forward on Assange's behalf? It would have been good to know and also to have a detailed judgment as to why those arguments did not find favour with the court. It is via open justice - the ability of the public to know the arguments put to a court and the publication of judgments - that the integrity of the system of justice is assured.
It remains to be seen whether the matter rests here or whether there is some form of challenge on human rights grounds raised with the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg.
- Judgment (PDF)
- Press summary (PDF)
- An Interesting Question - What If Mr Assange Ever Got To Sweden?
Recommended reading: A post on the Pal Wrange blog is well worth reading on this subject and offers a similar view to that in my post below and also looks at whether Assange could now be extradited from the UK directly to the USA. --- Julian Assange...
- Julian Assange ~ Quo Vadis?
Update 1 : A statement has been issued by the Foreign Secretary - here. "The UK does not accept the principle of diplomatic asylum. It is far from a universally accepted concept: the United Kingdom is not a party to any legal instruments...
- European Dimension: A Trio Of Items
Rights of Defendants: The European Union has published factsheets on the Rights of Defendants in Criminal Proceedings. The Bar Council and Criminal Bar Association played a leading role in preparing the factsheet for England and Wales - (see Bar...
- Assange - European Arrest Warrants
Judgment has been handed down in Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin) - President of the Queens Bench Division (Sir John Thomas) and Ouseley J. It is interesting, for reasons which will become apparent, that the respondent...
- Julian Assange Extradition: Legal Aid: David Chaytor
Julian Assange has lost his extradition hearing at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court. An appeal is almost certain. The Guardian 24th February 2011. Previous posts looking at aspects of this case are: "How the EU continues to expand...