![]() |
| Photograph: Geoff Caddick/AFP/Getty Images |
guardian.co.uk today reports:
"Julian Assange has lost his appeal against extradition to Sweden at the supreme court.
By a majority of five to two, the justices decided that a public prosecutor was "judicial authority" and that therefore his arrest warrant had been lawfully issued.
But lawyers for the WikiLeaks founder submitted an urgent request to the supreme court asking for permission to challenge one of the points made in the judgment.
Assange, who is facing charges of sexual assault and rape, was not in court. There was no legal requirement for him to be present. According to his solicitor, Gareth Peirce, he was stuck in traffic
The court granted Assange's lawyers 14 days to present their arguments that crucial issues related to Article 31 of the Vienna convention, on which the majority of the justices based their decision, were not raised during the hearing.
Assange's lawyers can also, at the same time, begin the process of appealing against the judgment to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg."
---So we have another delay, even if this last emergency application hinges on a crucial legal point in all democracies. No one should be judged on grounds that the involved parties haven´t been able to discuss in the case. If it is true, it would be a bit tragicomic that such a fundamental mistake is made in a high-profile case by the finest judges, but shit does happen...






