Justice for Assange

About this site.

According to a court spokesperson, the judgement for the Supreme Court Appeal hearing will take at least 4 weeks to be delivered (March).

What is the status of the extradition case?

Recent developments

UK Crown Prosecution Services deny a Freedom of Information Act request in relation to communications with other "States" regarding potention extradition arrangements for Julian Assange, on the grounds that it may endanger the UK’s diplomatic relations with other countries.

Swedish Prime Minister Reinfeldt attacks Assange in fresh new statements about the Assange case (25 January 2012): "This is typical of someone accused [’anklagad’] of a crime in a different country - to try to cast suspicion on that country or its legal system. One can see similarities with other cases where this technique has been used. Of course we have to stand our ground - we have a system of rule of law that works. And we take rape accusations very seriously - there are special interests trying to disparage how we have developed and how we stand by the good legislation [that is relevant] in this [Assange] case."

Swedish speakers can listen to the Prime Minister’s answers in the radio call-in programme:

Swedish Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, criticises Assange on Swedish national radio on 25 January 2012 - only one week before Assange’s team will argue that the European Arrest Warrant has not been subjected to scrutiny by an independent and impartial ’judicial authority’, before the Supreme Court in the UK. Despite this clearly impinging on Julian Assange’s due process rights the prosecutor (Marianne Ny), the Prime Minister (Fredrik Reinfeldt) and the politician-lawyer who represents the women (Claes Borgstrom) have attacked Julian Assange in the media over the past 15 months. Basic inalienable rights to due process, enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights and the EU Charter, are not being respected when the chief of the Swedish executive and other members of the executive publicly comment on the Assange matter. A full transcript/and translation of Reinfeldt’s reply, which also touches on Sweden’s complicity in extraordinary rendition, is available in Political Interference. See also Professor Ferrada-Noli’s article.

The Assange Case - a Colossal Miscarriage of Justice, Björn Karlin published in Journalisten.se English and Swedish

19 December 2011: Open Letter to Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, signed by high level supporters including former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and Lieutenant Colonel (ret) Lance Collins, Australian Intelligence Corps, see Australia

16 December 2011: [Julian Assange’s case will be heard by the UK Supreme Court, and is scheduled in for 1st of February 2011 for a two-day hearing->http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/news...]. The decision by the Supreme Court panel of judges comes on the same day as Bradley Manning’s pre-trial Art. 32 hearing commences in Fort Meade, near Washington D.C. Read more on Australia.

10 December 2011: The Supreme Court’s consideration of the appeal was rushed forward. Initially it was thought that the panel of judges would be convened six weeks from 5 December 2011. But extraordinarily so close to Christmas, three Supreme Court justices agreed to judge the appeal application and a decision was taken on 16 December 2011. One source has observed "The timing of the Supreme Court decision - announced as sometime between 19 and 25 December - a bit suspect as this could mean that extradition takes place while the UK Parliament is in Christmas recess. In that eventuality it might miss the scrutiny by the Home Secretary on Human Rights Act 1998 grounds that it should have."

• 7 December: First Interview With Julian Assange on Swedish television to speak of the Swedish allegations and the case. Interview with Malou von Sivers on Swedish Television channel TV4 is aired. Julian Assange did the interview on 4 December, the day before the High Court appeal judgement.

• 7 December 2011: Julian Assange has now been detained for 1 year without charge. The Supreme Court will deliver their decision on whether admit the appeal on 19 December 2011.

• 5 December 2011 The UK High Court of Appeal has ruled that one of the two points raised by Julia Assange’s team is of "general public importance" and should be considered by the Supreme Court. The point that succeeded was the question of whether a partisan public prosecutor is a ’judicial authority’ as required by the 2003 Extradition Act. The issue revolves around the notion there must be a separation between the executive and the judiciary when depriving a person of their liberty - in this case when the person concerned has not even been charged and the device used to deprive their liberty is extradition to another state. The court considered this to be a point of general public importance that may affect any person facing similar extraditions to the EU. The point transcended the facts of the case and the Supreme Court will decide whether it will allow the appeal, in principle in 14 days’ time. Mark Summers, representing Mr. Assange, said that since 2005, 60 different cases have challenged the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) at this court on the grounds that it had been issued by a prosecutor, and not by an independent and impartial member of the judiciary. Both the issue of whether a person who has not been charged can be extradited and the point of who is a "judicial authority" authorised to issue an EAW were debated in the UK Parliament. Julian Assange attended the extradition debate after his presence at the High Court, but had to leave before it was over in order to make the curfew. At least three MPs mentioned Julian Assange’s case and the fact that he had not been charged, as well as the judicial authority point.

• 5 December 2011 Parliament has listed a historic extradition debate in Westminster all day on 5 December 2011, the same day that the High Court announces its decision on whether the court certifies the two points of general public interest for a Supreme Court Appeal.

• 3 December 2011 - Australia: Freedom of Information Act disclosures reveal that US’ WikiLeaks investigation is ’’unprecedented both in its scale and nature’’.

• 24 November 2011 - UK Parliamentary Debate on Extradition in Westminster Hall

• Parliament holds a debate on extradition in Westminster on Thursday 24 November. Members of the public are writing to their local MPs to urge them to raise the 1st point of law regarding ’judicial authority’ in the Assange appeal. This point is particularly relevant for parliamentary discussion because the judgement goes against parliamentary intention behind the 2003 Extradition Act.
• Despite huge public demand for a full debate, the Parliamentary Backbench Business Committee has relegated the debate to Westminster Hall rather than the main chamber of the House of Common where it would be voted on by Members of Parliament. As the Babar Ahmed campaign explains, "Discussions in Westminster Hall are not subjected to a vote and rarely have any practical effect."
• A petition requesting a full parliamentary debate and vote can be found here.

22 November 2011: Jennifer Robinson holds a lecture on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange in Australia:

Jennifer Robinson - The Wikileaks Experience from CaTV on Vimeo.

17 November 2011: Julian Assange has appointed two new lawyers, Per E. Samuelson and Thomas Olsson, to represent him in Sweden. Both have extensive experience in highly politicised cases in Sweden. Samuelson is an outspoken critic of the failings of due process in Sweden. He was defence counsel in the Pirate Bay case. Thomas Olsson has been engaged in a long-term court battle to expose and quash eight murder convictions of Sture Bergvall, aka Thomas Quick. The Thomas Quick case has become known as Sweden’s most infamous case of miscarriage of justice. Quick is a mental patient who was given opiates in order to reveal suppressed memories and who grew addicted to confessing crimes he had not committed. He has since retracted his confessions and been cleared of half of the murders (the remaining sentences are currently being appealed). Quick’s defence counsel during the murder trials was Claes Borgström, who is now disgraced because of this case and as a result has reported himself to the Swedish Bar Association. Claes Borgström is a high profile politician and laywer representing the two complainants, AA and SW, against Julian Assange.

15 November 2011: Julian Assange’s team have raised the following points of law as grounds to appeal to the Supreme Court:

1) Whether a European Arrest Warrant issued by a partisan prosecutor working for the executive (i.e. not an independent judge or investigating magistrate in the civil law system) is a valid Part 1 Warrant issued by a "judicial authority" within the meaning of sections 2(2) & 66 of the Extradition Act 2003?

2) Whether a person in respect of whom no decision to prosecute has been taken can be said to be ’accused’ within the meaning of sections 2(3)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003?

Read why these two points are of ’general public importance’ in High Court Ruling (currently being updated).

15 November 2011: Julian Assange’s legal team have applied to the High Court for leave to appeal two points of law of general importance at the Supreme Court. The same High Court judges who dismissed Julian Assange’s case at the High Court will decide whether or not to certify these points, which must be of public importance and go beyond the specific facts of this case. They will decide this in open court, at the Royal Courts of Justice on 5 December 2011. A decision is expected the same day. If JA loses, he will be extradited to Sweden within 10 days and placed into Swedish custody.

High Court Judgment: The High Court has dismissed the appeal. Download the Judgment here and the summary here.

Read the High Court judgement (below), and the the submission for the appellant in July (further down).

Assange High Court Judgment 2 November 2011

Julian Paul Assange v. Swedish Prosecution Authority 13 july 2011

Previous News

• 18 October 2011: Home Office publishes independent review of UK extradition agreements. The EAW section is relevant to the Assange Appeal

• 6 October 2011: two new articles regarding the imminent judgment on extradition to Sweden/US: John Pilger "The Smearing of a revolution" in the New Statesman; and Jennifer Robinson and Lizzie O’Shea "Sleepwalking into Dangerous Territory" in the Alternative Law Journal.

• The UK High Court resumed work on 3 October 2011. The judgement for Julian Assange’s extradition appeal is expected to be announced shortly. Follow @swedenvsassange on Twitter to get the latest news.

• Read Guy Rundle’s recent article with a good overview of the Swedish case against Julian Assange and the implications for Wikileaks.

• See High Court Ruling for a new summary of the proceedings and other updates.

Sweden x Assange: Julian Assange in Court. London, 12&13 July, 2011 from swedenversusassange on Vimeo.

About this site

This is a guide to the events, investigations and court proceedings that are connected with Julian Assange’s extradition. This guide is the first to map out the legal aspects of the UK extradition cases, the controversies surrounding the Swedish investigation, and societal and political reactions in Sweden. The guide is an archive of information that is in the public domain.

The guide will be updated as the case progresses. Much of the material will be new to readers. All sources are indicated. The research has been commissioned by the Julian Assange Defence Fund’s (JADF) Committee to Defend Julian Assange.

SwedenVersusAssange.com has changed its name to Justice for Assange. It will be a one-stop-shop for information about legal processes against Julian Assange and by proxy, WikiLeaks. ’Sweden Versus Assange’ is the formal name of the extradition case in the UK courts.