Wikileaks' Assange to appeal extradition to Sweden at Supreme Court

Wikileaks' Assange to appeal extradition to Sweden at Supreme Court

Summary: Julian Assange is to appeal a UK High Court ruling which ruled that the Wikileaks founder should be extradited to Sweden to face sexual assault and rape charges.


Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, has filed an appeal at the highest court in the UK, the Supreme Court, in a bid to block his extradition to Sweden on charges relating to alleged sexual assault and rape.

The High Court, which served Assange's extradition fate last week, will decide whether the Wikileaks founder can appeal the decision, at a hearing on December 4th, in little more than three weeks time.

(Source: CBS News)

Assange recently lost his High Court case against extradition at the High Court, which gave his legal team only two weeks to orchestrate an appeal to the highest court in UK. High Court officials will still need to deem the case in the public interest for the appeal to go ahead.

Assange was arrested under a European Arrest Warrant in December 2010, where he was bailed and placed, in effect, under house arrest in east England.

Many believe that the arrest all the way through to the extradition hearings are politically motivated, after initial hearings linked the Wikileaks' founder to the organisation itself. Arguing earlier in the proceedings, Assange's legal team said that the arrest warrant he was arrested under was "not fair and accurate", according to the Guardian.

Assange's legal team has made it clear time and again that if he were to be extradited to Sweden, it would be far easier for the United States to extradite him further -- requiring residence in the United Kingdom to remain out of U.S. hands. But if the U.S. wanted to extradite him out of Sweden, the UK judiciary would have to authorise this move.

Considering the close political relationship between the U.S. and the UK, it would be unlikely whether politicians would reject the move. However, the judiciary -- an entity entirely separate from politics -- would have to approve the further move.

As Sweden's criminal justice system does not have a system for bail, Assange will be detained immediately upon his arrival.

The Wikileaks founder had angered the U.S. government after 'Cablegate', where 250,000 diplomatic cables between embassies were leaked and published by various co-ordinating media organisations, including the Guardian, Der Spiegel and The New York Times.

The cables sparked an international outrage at both governments and Wikileaks, and set to spark the 2011 Arab Spring, which led to revolutions across the Middle East and North Africa.

Last month, Assange told reporters at a press conference in the British capital that Wikileaks would suspend operations, amid a 'financial blockade' of donations by major U.S. banks, including PayPal, Visa and MasterCard, to instead focus on fundraising.

The blockade, which began in December 2010, caused Wikileaks to lose 95 percent of its revenue, the founder said, forcing the organisation to use cash reserves for the past 11 months.


Topics: Government US, Government

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • RE: Wikileaks' Assange to appeal extradition to Sweden at Supreme Court

    Julian Assange is an international outlaw. I hope he gets put away for a long time!
    • RE: Wikileaks' Assange to appeal extradition to Sweden at Supreme Court

      No Assange is _alleged_ to have committed some bedroom hijinks that are legal in most countries. Whether he is guilty of these activities is another matter.<br><br>What Assange did at Wikileaks may, or may not have been illegal in the U.S.A.; But so long as Sweden does not hand Assange over to the U.S., who cares?<br><br>Why are the American politicians (and citizens) baying for Assange's assassination, murder or extradition when they have yet to identify a single legal _allegation_ against the man, let alone given him a trial? <br><br>Let's see whether Assange is guilty of anything <i>whatsoever</i>, before calling him an "outlaw" and suggesting gaol.
      • I don't consider RAPE &quot;bedroom hijinks&quot;

        @StandardPerson Both RAPES were reported 3+ months before the controversy with the cable started. The story about the women sleeping with him and then changing their minds was a BS story made-up by Assange's lawyer.

        If he is so innocent, how come he is fighting so hard to prevent an extradition?
      • RE: Wikileaks' Assange to appeal extradition to Sweden at Supreme Court

        @StandardPerson It most western democracies what Assange is accused of is rape. That includes his native Australia. It may go by names such as date rape, but it is still rape.
      • RE: Wikileaks' Assange to appeal extradition to Sweden at Supreme Court

        @ wackoae "Both RAPES were reported 3+ months before the controversy.."<br><br>OK, and when they were first reported, the police told both women that they had no case against Assange and a senior prosecutor told both women the same thing. Assange was in regular (daily IIRC) contact with the senior prosecutor for several weeks before he left Sweden; and Assange explicitly asked for, and received, permission to leave the country before leaving.<br><br>The warrant was only issued when the Attorney General (?) decided to override the police and the senior prosecutor - a very strange act for an elected official that blurs the line between politics and the law. <br><br>@wackoae "Both RAPES .."<br><br>The first victim of the ALLEGED rape drove Assange to a public talk less than three hours later and gave him a glowing introduction. This is strange behaviour for a victim of alleged rape, yet it used to be available as a video on YouTube. (It has been removed.)<br><br>@AnotherBird "It most western democracies what Assange is accused of is rape."<br><br>So far, Assange has not been accused of anything. <br><br>When the two alleged victims originally went to the police, they merely wanted the police to contact Assange (who had his cell off) to ensure that he was tested for a sexually transmitted disease - something the police and the prosecutor told them was impossible.<br><br>The claims about Assange "holding the women down with his body weight" etc. only appeared weeks later, after the elected Attorney General had intervened and Assange had left Sweden with the permission of the prosecutor.<br><br>Date rape is certainly rape, but if either woman was raped then why didn't they tell the police or the original prosecutor? Why didn't they say a word in the weeks before Assange left Sweden? If they had been raped, why did they stay quiet until they were approached by the Attorney General?<br><br>(?) I'm not sure whether "Attorney General" is the correct word.<br><br>If I sounded like I was minimising the allegations by writing "bedroom hijinks" rather than "rape," then I apologise. But they are still merely allegations.<br><br>
        The fact that one of Assange's accusers has strong ties with the (U.S.-backed) "Free Cuba" movement just doesn't help things at all. I would normally be loathe to point the finger at someone who claims that they've been raped, but given the insane U.S. hatred for Assange and the accuser's possible CIA links, I have to go with Assange here.
      • RE: Wikileaks' Assange to appeal extradition to Sweden at Supreme Court

    • Re: Julian Assange is an international outlaw.

      @Tiggster79 Please tell us what law(s) he broke exactly, and in which country(ies).
    • RE: Wikileaks' Assange to appeal extradition to Sweden at Supreme Court

  • RE: Wikileaks' Assange to appeal extradition to Sweden at Supreme Court

    The UK is in the EU, if any police force in the EU wants the UK to arrest and extradite someone the UK has to do it, far more worthy cases than Assange have slipped under the radar of people being extradited to EU countries without a shred of evidence pointing to their guilt. <br><br>I have no idea whether or not Assange has broken the law but he should return to Sweden to answer his alleged crimes because:<br><br>1. The UK is bound by EU law to do so<br>2. Before traveling to the UK he told the Swedish police that he would return to answer the charges against him<br>3. IF after this the US want to extradite him, the UK has a far more lenient extradition treaty with the US than Sweden does
    • RE: Wikileaks' Assange to appeal extradition to Sweden at Supreme Court


      Do you have a reference for 2)? If the police and the prosecutor [1] seriously thought Assange was guilty of any serious crime then why did they allow him to leave the country? Why didn't they file charges against him and take his passport?

      Finally, why did the Swedish authorities refuse to interview him by telephone or a video link?

      [1] I mean the original prosecutor, not the elected party-political, parliamentary prosector.
      • RE: Wikileaks' Assange to appeal extradition to Sweden at Supreme Court

        @StandardPerson <br><br>The reference was in Private Eye, a UK publication which doesn't really do a digital version.<br><br>The reason the Swedish authorities let him go for 2 reasons:<br><br>1. If you are going to bail someone in the EU then you have to let them travel within the EU because of open boarder policies, you cannot stop them, it becomes like traveling between states in the US.<br>2. It was originally considered minor sexual assault rather than rape (I believe they upgraded the charge later) and so he was allowed to be in effect bailed and as he said he had business in the UK and would be back in a couple of weeks the police were fine with that arrangement<br><br>It doesn't really matter if they had taken his passport I can leave the UK today travel to Paris via the Eurostar and get in with my driving license.

        The Assange case is bringing to light scandal that is the European Arrest Warrant where you can extradited to another country without a shred of evidence
      • RE: Wikileaks' Assange to appeal extradition to Sweden at Supreme Court

        @the.nameless.drifter<br><br>Thanks for that. I know Private Eye and their nonsatirical reporting is usually quite good.

        One reason why Assange may have changed his mind about returning to Sweden could have been the change in prosecutor. Before Assange left Sweden, he was dealing with public servants in the police and a government prosecutor.

        After he left Sweden (IIRC) the politically-appointed Attorney General had taken over the prosecution, which made the allegations look far more sinister. (The fact that Assange's accusers had also completely changed their accounts of the facts, resulting in far more serious charges, cannot have helped.)

        Given the radically changed circumstances, I can understand why Assange broke his promise to return to Sweden.

        I also have to ask why the Swedish prosecution refused Assange's offer to answer questions via video link.