You are on page 1of 10

onward transmission, extradited to another state--consent before the competant authorities to make clear voluntarily requested person a process,

engaging the issuing of a public prosecutor, so my lord, my lady we submit the language of the framework decision, drafting process, should not include the public safeguard, thru out EU to promote the necessary degree of confidence---the interp of the framework decision itself prosecutor court of justice public prosecutor question convention operate left second over----not sure---harder to understand his accent. ambiguity if the states are in breach of the framework decision----there is nothing in a framework decision---the point is if a non-judicial authority issues an arrest warrant----the answering state has no reason to comply to accept the warrants---its entirely legitimate to comply---that's why the 2003 act does not go further than---judicial authority european commission---might be accepted---equally not consciously extraordinary vagueness and casualness of what is a judicial authority the implementation . . . irish legislation . .. not generally prosecutors---ministry of justice---commmission is powerless to do anything about it---2014 commmission powerless oddity---criticized by evaluation team---yet keeps renewing the validity.

some states in breach---some---meaning of the framework decision---publishes---the commission--there is a final report from the council in relation to jud authority deep ambiguity unsatisfactory implementation

a need for an authoritative court judgement other EU instruments--paragraph 119 for a european public prosecutor---for coercive measures that are less severe---

a statement of opinion---that is amde by european prosecutors---page 1697--lovely to be here---feel better after coffee--1697 electronic---streamlining the electronic law form desired i shall receive that tentatively then this received tentatively by judges and prosecutors 1654 opinion on the relationship and prosecutors that the rule of law be gauranteed public defendents and victims judicial review 3. the proper performance of prosecutors and judges-distinct an dindependent---ccp---in relation--they refer to the on the part of any officer which does not exclude higher authority

restrict ot minor sanctions should not overlap prosecutiion independent and impartial----key players mutual trust---in this context---imparative judicial proceeding protection of human rights (see international law hit men) printed version paragraph six the diversity of national systems----diff role of diff prosecutorial approach the judge's role---complimentary independence of judiciary suspect accused victim---and where the distinct role---rule of law---basis of prosecution policy paragraph 20-25 in particular function of judging basis of th elaw perogative of the judiciary continueing crim proceedings. binding decisions in some areas. no right of appeal--established case law of the ECHR the severity of the consequences--interpol sued--vexed question with the respondent---the cables----in for how to be handled individual states---supplementary guide---these documents are agreed---if we look first at the summary we can see that there are two types of warrants accusation warrants 11 states designated prosecut 7 judge

2 min of justice convic warrant 10 prosec 4 judge 6 ministry of justice (or with sweden the national police) cannot draw an inference---significant number of member states---to national police force---that ministry of justice in any rational sense of the term (apple factory deaths---aluminum fires haunting---in ipad factory) that is correct yes some of the articles can't work unless the executing how can these articles be working when ??/ good sympathy--or simply the prosecutor---2 from right---judge

situation is unsatisfactory recognized by the commission volume twelve from the authorities bundle irrespective practical disadvantages restricting the mandate of nonjudicial authorities that is clearly directed at ministries of justice---acknowledge that the submission about ministry of justice issued warrant and then the issue with prosecutors tolerated---this a report from the council---from the president what is the proper interpretation of the act the evolution of the language decision 2003 act in parliament that a european arrest warrant should be valid only of the judicial authority hard to understand: two over from left lord, the individual extracts from hansard---the complete lack of ambiguity---the reports of the select committee---they trigger ammendments---the home affairs select committee-what is the mischief? select committee report why judicial is included--the concern was that in the absence of that word there would be inadequate safeguards for the liberty of the subject not entirely clear when one reads the whole of the statement whether one looks at hansard or not---and we submit that the inclusion---the ammendment of

the bill to include the word judicial---that parliament was concerned to protect against warrants that are not properly regarded as judicial--ECHR article 5 to prevent arbitrary detention scheme and framework decision legislated on broader terms--9 page 2152 electronic irish equiv. european arrest warrant---2156 definition 2003 EAW judicial authority member state---over the page----judicial authority---magistrate---or other--to perform functions or similar too---section 33 supplementary what we will see section 33 is the section that gives the power to issue the EAW the irish version expressly excludes issueing state

violation of article 5---lord 2 from left im not lord i dont suggest that---the point that i make---it is not a point that is made by the UK parliament--that is the point--Q: is it capabable if the member state designated a private prosecutor under the irish statute that would be significant---sdesignated in a member state--actively encourages them to do so----flaw ofg min cooperation ---and of course---one of the parties was UK has not agreed to anything greater--the term judicial authority===extended term 2 fm left intones reply: if jud auth means any authority----then it is emptied of content---the phrase judicial is adding nothing--you can define a word to mean anything

the irish define it to mean anything approved by state--their executing auth is the high court---youd expect that from a common law jurisdiction set the standard alta revisias irish high court

on the construction of this 2003 act what permits--UK only what required that brings me then---what are the implications on the status of the swedish prosecutor---very clear---simple case---role and function--expressly commission in ECHR clear finding that the swedish prosecutor is not independednt of the parties----the same message from swedish evaluation report---if court goes to --REVOLUTION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW NOW TAKING PLACE legal dept publication force local prosecution task sweden does not follow investigating judge model--surveillance protection

strong prosecutors and police issue warrants in sweden---national police board---EAW swedish national police force---even if the divisional court---the original commission---that proposal made it clear as sweden has failed to implement the framework decision---THE ONLY QUESTION IS: how badly? there is a description of the swedish law relational to the EAW only issued if justified---estimated time it costs requested--serious criminality--strong tie to sweden whether its proportionate to issue the EAW tentative suggestion even if the swedish prosecutor--SVE court of appeal--converted to a EAW and under swedish law--- afurther discretionary judgement----not of detaining somebody but requiring their ---across boardiers

in a court in absentia--conditional precedent court order for detention not whether they should be detained but if they should be extradited submit flaws decision paragraph 33 story ideas--(dalit law)

(confetti) (wikileaks gold stars) 34 much assistance from hansard---89 act van der holst---amsterdam issued an arrest warrant---basis of the jurisdiction---in 1870 volume threee of the van der holst this is a case under the old 1870 extradition act-made by a state not a judicial authority-with evidence the arrest warrant didnt fall within the scope of the act ten the internal numbering it is conceded the warrant not a judicial document the simple answer act is inclusive warrant is including nothing in treaty requiring a judge or magistrate signiture--why would sweden be refffing this 1870 method? two diff meanings---the reasons then followed---in the first place--the term judicial---each---reps three fold branches of state

fundamental judicial and legislative branch (funny here at the house of lords spin off sup ct.) status of a prosecutor does have diversity whether or not they are judicial enjoy the decisions----they quote the cordova the point of shesa---practice---limit is drawn by the independence from the parties---divisional court---cordot----contrary to what is directed here--memorandum attached to the original not limited to authorities as such

1957 commission battery 71% laptop older (battery was burning fast on the newer one) designate state diversity with respect confused teh purpose of article 6 is--from amongst the pool---the purpose of article six---can designate-we say jus distraction recognize prosecutors can be included---prosecuting authority out of context commonwealth judge

eric holder meets--wikileaks atty simpsons wikileaks TV RT big news week missing the point anybody who makes decision is adjudicating deciding the proportionality test is being satisfied--for the point ---the mere description in that case they satisfied---again to say---that has no bearing with the position wren architecture helps the justice feel more real. but nice to have such a bright and well amplified courtroom and such polite judges. very supreme. the key whereby---second from left---speaks my lord---decision is in the supplementary bundle---tab on 4.2 key passage paragraph in this discuss ground appeal four---temple---not to be a judicial authority sumations of the lord advocate----none of this whether the netherlands-if UK enterred into extradition---agreement---only if member state is worthy confidence the danger---scottish eyes---would not be a jud. auth. in scotland therefore----authority of the chief--graple with the point not mere description not addressing the points we make at all--what one is putting confidence in----second--fm right furthest right---incorrect reasoning not terribly impressive going back to the divisional court judgement--then ananda--english court--which the benefit of much fuller argument----maybe the circumstances----will ordinarily reply---recognition of other state as inclusive then ref min justice and that the designation of min justice v. framework decision here the divisional court---the mere fact---could not be conclusive---there is a question of substance---the warrant is not valid---the court otreject ananda--central with mac--we received the lord advocate's submissions to reply in writing in argument

would you like a short not from us on the topic third from left speaks ECJ and the NS fundamental rights re: extradition to greece---re KRA its interesting a warrant issued by a ministry of justice would not be a proper warrant--which indicates that the . . . interesting because it invites a question why the ministry of justice

mission: it is incompatible---judicial is separate from the executive and the parties and the legislative (key for the social democrat bribe scandal) the beginning and end of this case. principle name---difficult to see the principle as lesss fundamental--self evident---if the judicial body---evidence---consider the merits of the challenge---of the executive---but not he parties----a decent degree of the executive the adversarial prosecutional ECommission on HR conclude the prosecutor is being asked to extradite when he has not been charged any offense offers video conference how can a prosecutor---make--a functional prob---can not be an impartial judge-appear to be from pinochet nemo judix rule judges who are biased this is the core meaning the particpant cannot function in a judicial way--goes to roman law european and not parochial common law--14th century 15th century latin and english divisional court justice role of---soca to determine whether judicial authority exists we respectfully agree with that---paragraph 49

divisional no challenge to be made---it is necessary to consider party to proceedings--altho a prosecutor---in pursuance proceedings---it would therefore mutual confidence circumstances necessary from a court mutual confidence is not enhanced ordinarily . . . both parties in proceedings---judges unease---that party is the judge--ceases to get higher standard of scrutiny----it is not a part 1 warrant to get in operation of his system. demonstrates the incoherence of the divisional court--house of lords---uncertainty respondent on this appeal is offerred no clear test for a judicial/nonjudicial authority your lordships---the SVEA court of appeal has not endorsed the EAW. they took another plan. my lord my lady unless there are any more q these are the submissions 2nd from left speaks SVEa ct of appeal upheld a domestic detention order---

what does this mean--they were not concerned with extradite---only if he were in sweden he could be arrested--check on the interpol class action separate discretion individual age factor---separate act of discretion--the court of appeals---he could be detained in sweden they reduced the warrant 275 svea---continued to be detained in absentia-the eaw will be ammended so says the 2nd from right good point. a press announcement. reference of reduction. decision is 445. permission to appeal trangression of appeal danger

abscond there were written submissions put in his behalf ex parte they dont address the issues as htey relate to him arrest warrant and whetehr there was probable cause--end presentation from assange lawyer ########################### montgomery now circumstances of how authority recognized assange passes note to blue sweater partial figure the difficulty is not measures--which evolve adjudicated between two parties--the issues of only one party is under consideration mr assange subjecting him to a process of extradition almost inevitably. whether by police tone has changed. two components seek arrest. criminal process. claire is not as melodious voice wise. it feels harsh. pressured. power to adjudicate. the flaw in the whole appraoch taken by the appelants---the answer is not necessarily---part of it is the preliminary part---the commencing the process---there is no reason---exercise in power. = second from right asks what judicial means. claire montgomery: in your interp---we could strike---arrrest and surrender---crim prosecution--extraneous? he puts word in her mouth. the decision must be taken as a---she says---without reference. political role--some function. if we ++++ taking a break now--deplores his politics.

mary rose lenore eng