header-logo header-logo

07 June 2012
Issue: 7517 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Extradition

Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22, [2012] All ER (D) 232 (May)

“Judicial authority” in Pt 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 should be accorded the same meaning as it bore in the Framework Decision and that term was properly to be understood as including public prosecutors. The purpose of the Framework decision was to introduce a system of surrender between judicial authorities for those accused or convicted of serious criminal offences which required each of the member states to give a uniform interpretation of the phrase “judicial authority”. Article 31.3(b) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties permitted recourse, as an aid to interpretation, to “any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which established the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation”.

When one considered the daft September Framework Decision, it was beyond doubt that “judicial authority” was a term that embraced both a court and a public prosecutor. Although the precise definition of “judicial authority” was removed from the final draft, the overall scheme of the warrant did not

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths strengthens national tax team with Heather Gibson appointment

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll