Julian Assange loses extradition Appeal

Julian Assange loses extradition case – live coverage

WikiLeaks founder's Dinah Rose QC given 14 days to decide whether to make application to ask supreme court to reopen the case
• Read a summary of key events
• Read more: Julian Assange loses appeal
Share203




Email


This page will update automatically every minute: On | Off



Julian Assange at the Houses of Parliament last December. Photograph: Sang Tan/AP


10.04am: Here is a summary of this morning's events:

• 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 his arrest warrant therefore had been lawfully issued.

• But lawyers for the WikiLeaks founder were given two weeks to decide whether to challenge one of the points made in the judgment, and Assange's extradition will be stayed at least until then. Dinah Rose QC, for Assange, said that the justices had made their decision based on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties - but the provisions of that convention had not been raised during the hearing.

• Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said this meant there was "everything to play for still", and it would be "very embarrassing" if the supreme court had to reopen the case on the basis that "they might have considered something which they gave the parties no opportunity to argue".

• In brief, the judges ruled that the the UK had signed up to the European framework on extradition in order to help create a single system for surrendering accused people, and that it was always intended that the11 EU member states that allow prosecutors to issue extradition orders – as Sweden, but not the UK, does – would be able to continue doing so.

• Lord Mance, one of two dissenting justices, said the wording of the framework decision was ambiguous and so it was appropriate to consider what ministers said at the time, which was that it would be a judge, court or magistrate that issued the order.

• Assange was not in court. His solicitor, Gareth Peirce, told the Guardian's Owen Bowcott that he was stuck in traffic.


9.42am: Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg was just on BBC News talking about the request by Julian Assange's QC, Dinah Rose, for two weeks to decide whether to ask the supreme court to reopen the case. He said:


This is a very unusual thing. It's not happened since this court was set up. It happened in the Pinochet case in the House of Lords. Very unusual, and means there's everything left to play for still.

He said that since Assange was not in court his lawyers had not been able to take instructions from him yet regarding what he wanted them to do. "We're waiting to see what he says. In the meantime he can stay in this country for at least two weeks, while they consider making this unprecedented application to reopen the case on the basis that it was decided on a point of law in the Vienna Convention on the Interpretation of Treaties that was simply not argued by either side and which the court gave no notice to either the Crown Prosecution Service, representing the Swedish authorities, or Mr Assange's lawyers, that they were considering taking into account."

Rozenberg added:


It would be very embarrassing if the supreme court felt the need to reopen the case and it's extraordinary, isn't it, that they might have considered something which they gave the parties no opportunity to argue. From time to time judges do their research and they add points, minor points, that have not been considered, but it appears that the decisive point in this case was one that wasn't argued, and that's something which is pretty unusual, and that's what prompted this unexpected intervention from Dinah Rose which took Lord Phillips so much by surprise that he mixed her up with the other counsel, Clare Montgomery.

9.41am: Here is the judgment in full (pdf).

9.34am: Here are the supreme court's reasons for its judgment:


Article 34 (2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union provides that framework decisions are binding on member states as to the result to be achieved but that national authorities may choose the form and method of achieving this. For the reasons given by Lord Mance in his judgment the supreme court is not bound as a matter of European law to interpret Part 1 of the 2003 [Extradition] Act in a manner which accords with the framework decision, but the majority held that the court should do so in this case.

The immediate objective of the framework decision was to create a single system for achieving the surrender of those accused or convicted of serious criminal offences and this required a uniform interpretation of the phrase "judicial authority". There was a strong domestic presumption in favour of interpreting a statute in a way which did not place the United Kingdom in breach of its international obligations.

An earlier draft of the framework decision would have put the question in this appeal beyond doubt, because it stated expressly that a prosecutor was a judicial authority. That statement had been removed in the final version. In considering the background to this change, the majority concluded that the intention had not been to restrict the meaning of judicial authority to a judge. They relied, as an aid to interpretation, on the subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which established the agreement of the parties. Some 11 member states had designated public prosecutors as the competent judicial authority authorised to issue EAWs. Subsequent reviews of the working of the EAW submitted to the European council reported on the issue of the EAWs by prosecutors without adverse comment and on occasion with express approval.

Lord Phillips felt that this conclusion was supported by a number of additional reasons: (1) that the intention to make a radical change to restrict the power to issue EAWs to a judge would have been made express, (2) that the significant safeguard against the improper use of EAWs lay in the preceding process of the issue of the domestic warrant which formed the basis for the EAW, (3) that the reason for the change was rather to widen the scope to cover some existing procedures in member states which did not involve judges or prosecutors and that the draft referred to "competent judicial authority" which envisaged different types of judicial authority involved in the process of executing the warrant.

Lord Dyson preferred not to infer the reasons for the change and did not find the additional reasons persuasive. Lord Walker and Lord Brown also found these reasons less compelling. Lord Kerr relied on the fact that public prosecutors in many of the member states had traditionally issued arrest warrants to secure extradition and a substantial adjustment to administrative practices would have been required.

Parliamentary material relating to the debates before the enactment of the 2003 Act were held by the majority to be inadmissible as an aid to construction under the rule in Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593, given the need to ensure that the phrase "judicial authority" had the same meaning as it had in the framework decision. Lord Kerr remarked that that it would be astonishing if parliament had intended radically to limit the new arrangements (thereby debarring extradition from a number of member states) by use of precisely the same term as that employed in the framework decision.

Lord Mance, dissenting, held that the common law presumption that parliament intends to give effect to the UK's international obligations was always subject to the will of parliament as expressed in the language of the statute. In this case, the correct interpretation of "judicial authority" in the framework decision, a question of EU law, was far from certain. Thus if parliament had intended to restrict the power to issue EAWs to judges or courts, that would not have required a deliberate intention to legislate inconsistently with the framework decision. As the words in the statute were ambiguous, it was appropriate to have regard to ministerial statements, and those statements showed that repeated assurances were given that an issuing judicial authority would have to be a court, judge or magistrate.

Lady Hale agreed with Lord Mance that the meaning of the framework decision was unclear and that the supreme court should not construe a UK statute contrary both to its natural meaning and to the evidence of what parliament thought it was doing at the time.

9.31am: The supreme court has just sent its full judgment. The press statement reads:


The issue is whether an European arrest warrant ("EAW") issued by a public prosecutor is a valid Part 1 EAW issued by a "judicial authority" for the purpose and within the meaning of sections 2 and 66 of the Extradition Act 2003.

By a majority the court has concluded that the Swedish public prosecutor was a "judicial authority" within the meaning of both the framework decision and the Extradition Act.

It follows that the request for Mr Assange's extradition has been lawfully made and his appeal against extradition is accordingly dismissed.

It adds:


The supreme court by a majority of five to two (Lady Hale and Lord Mance dissenting) dismisses the appeal and holds that an EAW issued by a public prosecutor is a valid Part 1 warrant issued by a judicial authority within the meaning of section 2(2) and 66 of the 2003 Act.

9.27am: Assange was not in court today.

9.25am: Rose asks if the extradition can be stayed for two weeks too. Phillips says that is a reasonable request and grants that.

9.24am: Lord Phillips gives her two weeks to make an application to reopen this case.

9.23am: Dinah Rose QC, for Julian Assange, says she has not had time to study the decision properly yet but she says it means that a majority of members of this court have made their decision based on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties - but that was never brought up at the time, she says.

She is considering an application to argue that this matter should be "reopened", Rose says.

9.22am: The Swedish public prosecutor is a judicial authority. The request for Assange's extradition has been lawfully made and his appeal has been dismissed, Phillips says.

9.22am: That means Julian Assange has lost his case.

9.22am: Lady Hale and Lord Mance did not agree, he says.

9.20am: In French the words judicial authority can be used to mean a public prosecutor, Phillips says. Many countries use public prosecutors. The majority of justices agree that this means a public prosecutor is included in the Extradition Act.

9.20am: Phillips says the point of law - does a prosecutor have the right to order extradition or must that be done by a judge - had not been simple to resolve and the decision on the supreme court was 5-2.

9.18am: Phillips runs through the brief recent history of the European arrest warrant system.

This introduced a new rule whereby the state requesting extradition no longer had to prove the case to the other state.

9.17am: Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the president of the supreme court, begins speaking.

He says the Swedish extradition request has raised a point of law for the court to address. That has nothing to do with the actual accusations against Assange, he says.

9.17am: All rise as the justices enter the court.

9.15am: Dinah Rose QC and Assange's legal team are taking their seats.

9.12am: BBC News is showing pictures of pro-Assange supporters outside the supreme court, carrying placards backing the WikiLeaks founder.

9.08am: The live feed from the supreme court has begun. You can watch it here.

9.03am: Esther Addley tweets from court:




esther addley@estheraddley


20-30 journalists in court, all on laptops, iPads, smartphones. Similar scene on public benches too, obv. #Assange

30 May 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite

9.00am: Owen Bowcott tweets from the supreme court:




Owen Bowcott@owenbowcott


More cameras than pro-Assange demonstrators outside. Usual Rolls Royce service inside supreme ct as machinery of justice glides into place.

30 May 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite

8.52am: Esther Addley tweets from the supreme court:




esther addley@estheraddley


Team #Assange - Vaughan Smith, Gavin McFadyen, John Pilger, Kristin Hrafnsson - arrive at court. I haven't seen JA tho assume he's here

30 May 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite

8.46am: Karen Todner of Kaim Todner Solicitors, which has fought many extradition cases, has told the Associated Press she thinks Assange's prospects of success have increased:


When he first started out, I thought: "He hasn't gotten much of a chance," but now I'm much more hopeful. I would say that in the last few months there has definitely been a swing in favor of defendants in relation to extradition.

But she suggested that if Assange wins Sweden could reissue the extradition warrant through a judge.

And a spokewoman for Sweden's prosecutors told Reuters that if he wins the Swedish arrest warrant will still be valid in any other European country bar Britain.

In Stockholm, former senior prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem expressed frustration with the delays, saying that European arrest warrants "should work efficiently and rapidly" and that he was surprised that the legal wrangling in Britain had dragged on for a year and a half. "If I were in his shoes, I would have been going to Sweden at once to get rid of this horrible situation where an investigation has been going on for so long," Alhem said.

8am: Good morning. The supreme court will rule this morning on whether Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault. The WikiLeaks founder denies the accusations.

The judgment will be announced at 9.15am. Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the president of the supreme court, will give a summary of the point of law raised by the case, the court's decision, and a brief explanation of why it has reached that decision.

Today's ruling does not deal with the substance of the accusations – which relate to a trip Assange took to Sweden in 2010, after which he was accused by two women with whom he had had sex of four offences of unlawful coercion and sexual misconduct including rape.

Instead it relates to one specific question: can a prosecutor rather than a judge legally order someone's extradition?

In Britain generally only judges can approve arrest warrants. But the warrant for Assange was issued by Sweden's public prosecutor, as is normal there.

Assange's lawyers argue that the Swedish system is unfair because it puts the power to issue arrest warrants in the hands of the same prosecutors who are trying to put the accused person in jail.

After a court ruled in February 2011 that Assange should be sent to Sweden to answer the accusations against him, the WikiLeaks founder appealed, lost, and then took the case to the supreme court. This February the supreme court heard two days of dense legal argument about whether a Swedish prosecutor constitutes a judicial authority under the European arrest warrant framework and the Extradition Act 2003, which incorporates it into British law, along with discussions of the history of the European arrest warrant framework going back to the 1957 European convention on extradition. (I live-blogged those two sessions in exhaustive detail here and here.)
Julian Assange and his QC Dinah Rose at the supreme court in February. Photograph: Sky News
Assange's QC, Dinah Rose, argued that the European arrest warrant's use of the term "judicial authorities" was meant to mean a judge or magistrate, and not a prosecutor, who is not independent. For Sweden, Clare Montgomery QC argued that the term "judicial authorities" was always meant to encompass prosecutors in some EU countries, and there was no requirement for the figure issuing the warrant to be independent.

If Assange loses today he can appeal to the European court of human rights. The ECHR will then respond within 14 days.

If it decides to take the case, it can also order "interim measures" to stay Assange's extradition until the case is heard.

However, the Crown Prosecution Service says that if the ECHR agrees to take the case it will not extradite him until the case has been heard, with or without interim measures: "If the ECHR takes the case then his current bail conditions would remain in force and he would remain in the UK until the proceedings at the ECHR have concluded." That could be months away.

However, it seems unlikely that the ECHR would agree to take the case. Barrister Carl Gardner of the Head of Legal blog told the Guardian that such an application would be a "steeply uphill" struggle for Assange:


His argument could only be that extradition (an application against the UK would have to be about the extradition itself) would breach article six [of the European convention on human rights – the right to a fair trial] indirectly, because a trial in Sweden would be a "flagrant denial of justice" - more than just an ordinary unfair trial.

The only time I think the ECHR has ever said extradition/deportation/removal on these grounds would be in breach is I think Abu Qatada's case this year, in which it said the risk of use of evidence gained by torture would be a flagrant denial of justice. Assange's complaint would be much less powerful than that.

Assange may choose not to appeal to the ECHR. A source close to the WikiLeaks founder told the Guardian during February's supreme court hearings that he was unlikely to do so.

If the ECHR refuses to take the case Assange will be extradited to Sweden "as soon as arrangements can be made", the CPS says. Once in Sweden, Assange would probably be kept in custody - bail does not exist there - and if he is charged a trial might begin in a few months.

If Assange wins, however, he will not be extradited, and the system of European arrest warrants will be thrown into doubt, because many European countries have a system similar to Sweden's.

You can read more about the background to the case here.

Footage of the proceedings will be streamed live here. My colleagues Owen Bowcott and Esther Addley will be tweeting live from court, and we will be covering everything live here on this blog.
203Share






Posted by
Paul Owen
Wednesday 30 May 2012 10.05 BST guardian.co.ukComments (69)





Article history


Media
Julian Assange ·
WikiLeaks

Society
Rape

UK news
Crime

World news
Sweden ·
Europe ·
European Union ·
United States

Law
UK supreme court

More from News blog on

Media
Julian Assange ·
WikiLeaks

Society
Rape

UK news
Crime

Law
UK supreme court

World news
Sweden ·
Europe ·
European Union ·
United States

More minute by minutes

More blogposts



Buy WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's war on secrecy


Buy the book (UK)
Buy the book (US)
Buy the ebook




Related

29 May 2012

Julian Assange to find out extradition fate on Wednesday


16 Dec 2011

Seven judges to hear Julian Assange extradition appeal


12 Jul 2011

Julian Assange extradition appeal hearing – Tuesday 12 July 2011


16 Dec 2011

Julian Assange can appeal against extradition, supreme court rules

Next
Previous
Blog home
Share




Email






Ads by Google


Expert Winding-Up Lawyers

Need help with Winding-Up Petition? Free consultation: Call 08458622529

windinguppetitionsolicitors.co.uk


Affordable Barristers

Affordable. Fees published online Consultation only £70 plus vat

www.lawsurgery.com

Julian Assange has sought refuge in the Equadorian Embassy in London , fearing he was about to be extradited. The Embassy did no more than issue the News saying they could not refuse under the U.N. charter.

FORGOT ABOUT THIS ON THE NEWS

I think Britain agreed the extradition to Sweden knowing the U.S. would ask Sweden for his extradition to the U.S. . How come Halligen is still in Jail
in the U.K.....think about it, the U.S. is furious with Assange for all the info he leaked.

20 June 2012 Last updated at 10:31 Share this pageEmail Print Share this page

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who is seeking asylum at Ecuador's London embassy, has breached bail and faces arrest, police have said.

Mr Assange, whose conditions included staying at his bail address between 2200 and 0800 BST, spent Tuesday night at the embassy.

Last week he failed to reopen an appeal against his extradition to Sweden.

Mr Assange, wanted for questioning over rape and sexual assault allegations, denies any wrongdoing.

Ecuador had said it was "studying and analysing" Mr Assange's request for asylum.

Mr Assange fears if he is sent to Sweden it may lead to him being sent to the US to face charges over whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, for which he could face the death penalty.

His website has published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments and international businesses

6:17am UK, Thursday June 21, 2012

Ecuador's government says it will announce a decision on the fate of Julian Assange later today.

The WikiLeaks founder remains in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where he is seeking asylum to avoid being sent to Sweden to answer accusations of sexual assault.

Mr Assange also faces arrest for breaching bail conditions.

The 40-year-old Australian has been inside the building, near Harrods in Knightsbridge, since Tuesday afternoon, when he requested political asylum under the United Nations Human Rights Declaration.

Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa, will make a decision on Mr Assange's application later, the country's deputy foreign minister Marco Albuja told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.



Julian Assange has been fighting to prevent extradition

The South American country, whose UK ambassador Anna Alban has met British officials, says Mr Assange is under its protection while it considers the application., which comes after his failed attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden under a European arrest warrant to face sex crime allegations.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) confirmed in a statement that he was "beyond the reach of the police" while he remains in the building.

Mr Assange faces arrest if he leaves the embassy.

The Metropolitan Police said Mr Assange had breached a condition of the £200,000 bail imposed by the High Court, that he stay at a bail address between 10pm and 8am.

Several high-profile figures have supported Mr Assange since his arrest in December 2010, including film director Ken Loach and socialite and charity fundraiser Jemima Khan, who each offered £20,000 as surety.



Police have been waiting at the Ecuador Embassy

Ms Khan voiced her surprise at his move, writing on Twitter: "I had expected him to face the allegations. I am as surprised as anyone by this."

Mr Assange's move to claim asylum is the latest twist in a marathon legal battle played out in the glare of worldwide publicity.

He is set to be extradited to Sweden, where he faces accusations of raping a woman and sexually molesting and coercing another in Stockholm in August 2010 while on a visit to give a lecture.

Mr Assange, whose WikiLeaks website has published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments and international businesses, says the sex was consensual and the allegations against him are politically motivated.

Last month the Supreme Court upheld a High Court ruling made in November last year that his extradition was legal. Last week the same court refused an attempt by him to reopen his appeal against extradition, saying it was "without merit".

He had until June 28 to ask European judges in Strasbourg to consider his case and postpone extradition on the basis that he has not had a fair hearing from the UK courts.

The Ecuadorian Government is asking whether Assange's life is in danger which is the reason for him seeking asylum. The answer is probably NO, because
he is only trying to avoid being sent to Sweden and thence to the U.S.A.. He knows he would probably be given "life" for his publishing of American secret information.

22 June 2012 Last updated at 03:55 Share this pageEmail Print Share this page

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange says he has sought refuge in Ecuador's London embassy because his native Australia has abandoned him.

Mr Assange is seeking diplomatic asylum to prevent him being sent to Sweden to answer accusations of rape and assault, which he denies.

In his first interview since entering the embassy, Mr Assange admitted there was no guarantee his bid would succeed.

Ecuador's president said the country was examining the case for asylum.

Mr Assange fears if he is sent to Sweden it could lead to him being sent to the United States to face charges over Wikileaks and that he could face the death penalty.

His Wikileaks website published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments and international businesses.

In his interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corp radio, Mr Assange, 40, said he did not know when the decision would be made.

"We hope that what I am doing now will simply draw attention to the underlying issues," he said.

He said he had mounted his bid because his native Australia had made an "effective declaration of abandonment" by refusing to intervene in his planned extradition.

Accusing the US ambassador to Australia and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard of using "slimy rhetoric," he dismissed Australian government claims he had been receiving ongoing consular assistance.

"We had heard that the Ecuadoreans were sympathetic in relation to my struggles and the struggles of the organization with the United States," he said, explaining his decision.

Mr Assange is spending a third night in the embassy while inquiries by Ecuadorian diplomats continue.

Police say he faces arrest in the UK for breaching his bail conditions.

Kristinn Hrafnsson: 'Mr Assange is in good spirits and optimistic'
Mr Assange, whose bail conditions include staying at a named address between 22:00 and 08:00 BST, arrived at the embassy in Knightsbridge on Tuesday.

Politically-motivated

Speaking to BBC Mundo, the Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa said: "Ecuador defends the right to live and we will have to check if there is danger of death [for Mr Assange]."

He said that for some of the crimes Mr Assange has been accused of, he could face capital punishment if ever sent to the US.

Mr Correa added: "If there has been a breach of law [by Julian Assange], he should be prosecuted.

"But we have to be cautious in case they are making things up for an improper prosecution. We must analyse all that."

Last Thursday, seven judges at the UK's Supreme Court dismissed Mr Assange's attempt to reopen his extradition appeal as being "without merit".

Two female ex-Wikileaks volunteers alleged in 2010 that he had attacked them while he was in Stockholm to give a lecture. No charges have been filed.

Ecuador's President Rafael Correra says they are looking seriously and responsibly at the request
Mr Assange claims the sex was consensual and that the allegations are politically motivated.

The Australian has until 28 June to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. His lawyer, Dinah Rose QC, said he was considering whether to do this.

Swedish authorities have said the ECHR would intervene if Mr Assange was to face the prospect of "inhuman or degrading treatment or an unfair trial" in the US.

As part of Mr Assange's bail conditions, securities totalling £200,000 were lodged at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court.

A further £40,000 put up as sureties are thought to have been provided by socialite Jemima Khan and film director Ken Loach, who each offered £20,000.

Lawyers say bail would be forfeited only if Mr Assange failed to turn up for a scheduled court appearance.

I don't believe for a moment that Sweden really want Assange. The fumbling by the prosecutor in the case last year showed that. It is all because the US want their pound of flesh (i e Assange).

In the same way poor Gary McKinnon is being sought by them and just what are UK doing for him (he of course is UK citizen). Nothing of course as Gary & Julian are expendable in the grand scheme of keeping UK close to the United States.

If the boot was on the other foot the US would not assist back I am sure.

The British Government has complained to the U.S. that they have always acceded to requests to transfer people for trial in their Country, but the
U.S. is not so quick to return the favour. This is why I think they are holding on to Halligen.

Is it or is it a more sinister reason?

If UK government wanted to hold on to someone why not Gary McKinnon who was a child with asbergers who hasn't committed (allegedly) multi million pound fraud.

gillyspot wrote:Is it or is it a more sinister reason?

If UK government wanted to hold on to someone why not Gary McKinnon who was a child with asbergers who hasn't committed (allegedly) multi million pound fraud.

Are we talking about the same person? I seem to remember the 20 yr old was downloading illegally and selling ? They had to set an example so that
it would deter any other wouldbe entrepreneurs.

Maybe the U.S. are not too interested in Halligen, admittedly he did embarass some American Bigwigs by staging a fake wedding , but there would be
some who would not want their identities revealed if he were charged with money laundering. There was one English Accountancy Firm whose client
"invested " £1 million ....don"t hear anything of him and as Clarence said about the Fund paying Halligen £300,000, "the case is closed".

No Gary McKinnon is a very different person.

Here is a letter from his mother to Aung San Suu Kyi explaining what he did & what is happening.

http://www.londontv.net/aung-san-suu.html

gillyspot wrote:No Gary McKinnon is a very different person.

Here is a letter from his mother to Aung San Suu Kyi explaining what he did & what is happening.

http://www.londontv.net/aung-san-suu.html

Thanks gillyspot , surely some left wingers in the public eye could have started a Petition before now ? I know it is easy to say but if I was Gary's Mum I would have obtained a Doctor's report on Gary's condition , explained what he was trying to do and bypassed the Government, instead, sending the letter to the American embassy in London to be forwarded to the Supreme Court in the U.S.A. and the President of the U.S.A. Sent an open letter to the New York Times explaining what the situation is and asking them to publish it.

To be honest , if the Government really wanted to deport Gary they would have obtained a Court Order to arrest him and put him on the next plane.

Gary's mum Janis Sharp has been campaigning on twitter for a while (username @JanisSharp ) and she has been working tirelessly on his behalf to give him justice.

Have a look at this http://freegary.org.uk/ it will tell you more about her fight.

gillyspot wrote:Gary's mum Janis Sharp has been campaigning on twitter for a while (username @JanisSharp ) and she has been working tirelessly on his behalf to give him justice.

Have a look at this http://freegary.org.uk/ it will tell you more about her fight.

Gotta go now gillyspot ,will take a look later, but twitter is not going to help, you have to go straight to the top.

Read the other link Janis is doing far more than twitter.

Speak soon Panda xx

DAVID STRINGER
Associated Press








LONDON (AP) -- Ecuador's embassy in London said Saturday that ambassador Anna Alban was traveling to her country's capital to brief President Rafael Correa on the bizarre request for political asylum made by Wikileaks chief Julian Assange.

Assange took refuge inside the embassy on Tuesday and remains camped out in an office there after his legal options ran out for avoiding extradition from Britain to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning for alleged sex crimes.

Correa, Ecuador's leftist president, has said his government is considering Assange's request, but has not indicated when a decision will be made.

In a statement, the country's embassy said Saturday that Alban had boarded a flight to Quito to personally brief Correa on the situation.

"While in Ecuador she will be holding a series of meetings with officials at the ministry of foreign affairs before meeting President Correa to personally brief him on Mr. Assange's application for political asylum," the statement said. "She will also fully brief the president on her recent meeting with officials of the U.K. Government."

Speaking Thursday from inside the embassy, Assange said he had made his bid for asylum because the "Ecuadoreans were sympathetic in relation to my struggles." He had previously interviewed Correa, with whom he shares skepticism toward the United States.

"Ecuador presently finds itself in a unique situation and it is important that those responsible making the final decision on Mr. Assange's application are fully briefed on all aspects of the present," the embassy said in its statement.

Assange has been fighting since 2010 to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over alleged sexual assaults on two women. Assange denies the claims, and says the case against him is politically motivated.

Both he and supporters insist that if he was sent to Sweden he would then likely become the target of a U.S. request to extradite him there over allegations linked to his leaking of hundreds of thousands of secret U.S. documents via the secret-spilling WikiLeaks website.

U.S. soldier, Pfc. Bradley Manning, a 24-year-old from Crescent, Oklahoma, has been charged with aiding the enemy by passing the secret files to WikiLeaks and is awaiting trial.

A Virginia grand jury is studying evidence that might link Assange to Manning, but no action has yet been taken.

"We are hoping what I am doing now will draw attention to the underlying issues," Assange told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio in an interview Thursday.

Correa said his country would discuss the case with Britain, Sweden and the United States before reaching a final decision.

Jeanette Mattsson, a spokeswoman for Sweden's Justice Ministry, on Saturday said that Ecuador's Ambassador to Stockholm had met with two government officials on Thursday to discuss the Swedish judicial system and Assange's case.

While inside the London embassy, Assange remains outside the reach of British authorities - but police are poised to arrest him the moment he steps foot outside the building.

Police said Assange will be arrested for breaching the terms of his bail, which included an overnight curfew at a registered address.

Assange's lawyer Jennifer Robinson said Saturday that filmmaker Michael Moore has sent Assange a message of support, urging him not to despair.

Robinson posted an email sent by Moore, among supporters who offered money to meet Assange's 200,000 pounds ($316,000) bail, to her Twitter account.

In the message, sent Wednesday, Moore told the WikiLeaks founder it was a crime "that you even have to seek asylum, and I stand with you through this. Do not despair."

---

Associated Press writer Louise Nordstrom in Stockholm contributed to this report

© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

28 June 2012 Last updated at 14:04 Share this pageEmail Print Share this page


Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been served with an extradition notice by the Metropolitan Police.

Officers from the extradition unit delivered a note to Mr Assange at Ecuador's London embassy.

Mr Assange took refuge there last week and is seeking diplomatic asylum to prevent being sent to Sweden where he is accused of rape and assault.

Scotland Yard said the notice required a 40-year-old man to attend a police station "at a time of our choosing".

'Standard procedure'

The Wikileaks website published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments and international businesses.

Mr Assange fears that if he is sent to Sweden he could be sent on to the United States to face charges over Wikileaks and that he could face the death penalty.

In a brief statement to the BBC, Scotland Yard said: "This is standard procedure in extradition cases and is the first step in the removal process.

"He remains in breach of his bail conditions and failure to surrender would be a further breach of those conditions and he is liable to arrest."

Under international diplomatic arrangements, the Metropolitan Police cannot go into the embassy to arrest Mr Assange.

Mr Assange, whose bail conditions include staying at a named address between 22:00 and 08:00 BST, arrived at the embassy in Knightsbridge on Tuesday last week

Ecuador is considering Mr Assange's application for asylum

Wonder if anymore wikileaks is left to be published.....if so Assange could still make alot of trouble for certain folk!!!!

Julian Assange's Backers Ordered To Pay Up


People who put their money on the line as part of the WikiLeaks founder's bail conditions are told to hand over more than £90,000.


2:12pm UK, Monday 08 October 2012

Mr Assange has taken refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London

• Nine people who stood as sureties for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange before he took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy have been ordered to pay tens of thousands of pounds.
  

The backers have been told to hand over a total of £93,500 by November 6.

Mr Assange has been in Ecuador's London embassy since June as he attempts to avoid extradition to Sweden.

He fears he will eventually be sent to the US to face questions over his whistle-blowing website.

Ecuador has given him political asylum, but he faces arrest if he steps outside the embassy building.

The nine people agreed to be sureties as part of Mr Assange's bail conditions after he was arrested in 2010 over allegations of sexual offences in Sweden, and again after an extradition order was made in February 2011.

His decision to avoid custody means they now have to hand over varying amounts of money between them.
Mr Assange speaks from a balcony of Ecuador's embassy in August
Vaughan Smith, a friend who put Mr Assange up at his country mansion for more than a year, addressed Westminster Magistrates' Court last week on behalf of the nine, who put up a total of £140,000.

He said all those who offered sureties, of varying amounts, are "convinced that they have done and are doing the right thing".

In his ruling, the Chief Magistrate, Howard Riddle, said he accepted that the nine had all acted in good faith.

"I accept that they trusted Mr Assange to surrender himself as required. I accept that they followed the proceedings and made necessary arrangements to remain in contact with him.

"However, they failed in their basic duty, to ensure his surrender. They must have understood the risk and the concerns of the courts.
Vaughan Smith, one of the backers
"Both this court and the High Court assessed that there were substantial grounds to believe the defendant would abscond, and that the risk could only be met by stringent conditions including the sureties."

Vaughan Smith has been told to pay £12,000, while another three - Caroline Evans, Phillip Knightley and John Sulston - must each pay £15,000.

Five others - Tricia David, Joseph Farrell, Sarah Harrison, Sarah Saunders and Tracy Worcester - were ordered to pay amounts of between £3,500 and £12,000. Mr Riddle said he was taking into account the financial means of the nine when reducing the amount they have to pay.

Mr Riddle added that he saw no difference between Mr Assange taking refuge in the embassy and fleeing to Ecuador, but that he still foresees a "realistic possibility" that Mr Assange will be arrested by police when he leaves the embassy.

"Mr Assange has an obligation to comply with the legal requirements of this country to surrender to the bail granted on terms originally set by the High Court," he said in his ruling.

He added: "In declining to publicly (or as far as I know privately) urge Mr Assange to surrender himself (the sureties) have acted against self-interest.

"They have acted on their beliefs and principles throughout. In what is sometimes considered to be a selfish age, that is admirable."

The UK has told Ecuador that it is obliged to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden. Foreign Secretary William Hague recently held talks with Ecuadorian foreign minister Ricardo Patino in New York during a United Nations meeting