SUPREME COURT 1-feb-2012 when assange and kristinn made it through the gate i raised my hand and smiled

a big yay hooray---he said softly"i'made it through" the paparazzi---or the assassins??? then he and team went through security

the barrister female speaks executive parties swedish prosecutor cannot be a judicial authority no one can be a judge in her own cause a parochial common law concept natural justice codex europanus predates treaty rome basic norm of european printed case 63 pages 15 volumes supported judicial authority read with an extended meaning swedish prosecutor derived from the european framework decision which the 2003 act was to replace the appeal careful examination what is meant by judicial authority 2003 act a little longer in our submission it will end in the same place basic legal principle EAW constitutes a interference with individual liberty since the swedish prosecutor---she is not to EAW issue for 2003 act proceed: consider principles interp 2003 act interp judicial authority three broad areas the general context in which the framework was made

legislative process the language of the framework decision third relevance to that and praxis member states swedish prosecutor---judicial authority

decision of divisional court and see the flaws interp 3003 act 3 cases: cando armas volume 2 tab 22 2456 electronic (excellent microphones and clear audio unlike royal courts) mandatory for the hard copy and electronic copies matching---ammmend---persuasion---the nudge theory one of seven judges female. familiar to many members of the court---significant change in extradition practice in europe paragraph seven and paragraph 8 straight forward transposition twin assumptions provisions of part one greater cooperation principle to be applied 2003 act lord hope lord bingam paragraph 21---town council this is nt a n extradition system at all---paragraph---16 my lord---reference to lewis carroll through the looking glass

system of backing of warrants requesting authority limited lord hope is identifying the radical effect of the framework 2003 grounds on which extradition can be refused a system of mutual recognition built on trust and confidence high level in EU heat in UK re lack of to protect those---the new system has to earn trust----to protect rights--second important principle at framework decision trust which requires confidence

the streamlining of extradition balanced by a streamlining of rights protection for the rights of individuals extradition treaties statutory destruction\liberty at stake

rights removed by procedures framework decision if there are differences unlawful infringement of liberty difference

goes to the framework

J: extra protection----would inhibit extradition??!!! response: if there was an impossible compatible decision lord hope prepared all the way not to grapple with same wording in both instruments when looking at the term judicial authority broad ambit maintain trust and confidence by recognizing the individual the correct interpretation

J purple tie: react difference answer: your lordship is absolutely right a general approach to construction we do have a fall back position case of dabas-paragraph 2257 electronic---here similar analysis from lord bingam the propino case to framework decision lord hope---at paragraph 18 after looking at various obligation inherent in the existing procedures sufficient controls to decide whether or not surrender was in accord with the terms judicial state to question complexity and delay inimical to its objectives 74-75 case of caldereli

whether judge was right to treat it as an accusation warrant this depends on mutual recognition---defer---to the judge-2246 paragraph 42 cannot in any view determine the matter one sees here the mutual trust and confidence on which the european arrest warrant the house of lords feels the trust of a foreign judeg that is undermined if the arrest warrant is made by a prosecutor

no doubt it will be pointed out canoarmis case issue not addressed by the house of lords in the calderelli case

lord bingam---rely on the fact there has been a domestic judicial decision----what is it that the domestic J issues answ if part one warrant is it properly categorized

issuing judicial authority depends on the domestic law of the state the proper category whether for extradition or offense a form identifying the various features----clear isssue of discretion--whether it is proportionate proper approach for meaning propino principle framework decision individual rights to liberty

must be carefully and properly applied

core topic proper interp of the framework decision itself the framework the legislative process the 2003 act the language of the framework decision (footman) extradition applied in europe b4 framework entered # of treaties bilateral council of europe 1957 volume 3 of the appendix in the electronic numbering its 96 annnexed european convention---if we turn to the convention itself---article one deals with the obligation to extradict subject lay down request for an offense for the carrying out of a sentence

the provisional court relied on a judicial authority meant on this convention the contracting parties to each other made by states

not a system analogous to the backing of the warrant---it was a protocol between states. or that person is wanted a reference to the fact that a person is wanted for an offense or sentence diff than 2003 act 12 article same effect laid down in the party any arrest warrant the requirement law requesting party we then have the expalnatory report---volume 9 soft copy 3850 core volume if a court goes to 3850 under the heading obligation to extradict---article one bilateral convention france and germany thus the article has a bearing as a whole authorite judiciare---excludes police!!! keep your thumb in there and then take up the supplement 162 tab page 6275 i agree my lady this is why i am a hard copy fan (too bad we arent reading cablegate) article one second---continue en le texte francaise\les autorite propre mon dit des exclusion parque---prosecution (wood slab in court???) propre mon dit thos of course are not explanatory in the english the french text recognizes authority judiciary we submit that thats understandable with the english and french texts----the english does not use the purpose in article one to identify the authorities proceeding for the commission of the offense--is the prosecution000 in french there is a distinction between the judicail authority and the prosecution---

through the diplomatic channel thats all you get

that is accompanied by an arrest warrant----different systerm

my lord if we go back to article one---it for one wanted to serve a sentence for a conviction--irish civil liberties defender jim curran says into my ear "she is very good" re assange's lawyer all parties proceeding for the offense envisions situation in which authorites then if a court makes a detention order it would issue awarrant for an arrest origin is a bilateral treaty btw germany in france

situation in sweden my lord thats absolutely right look at the functions of the prosection and authority q; not concerned with a particular prosecution---

extensive case law from the ECHR can constitute judicial authority we submit---this is a straightforward case---already examined---

quite dense---57 convention the purpose of article one wholly diff from the nature of the parties proceeding explanatory in french different authority judiciare---established on a europe wide basis---that the clarity of function the parties who used these terms referred to this Ecommission on human rights ms. montgomery---this case law---irrelevant---impartial judge rather than a party with respect we say that she misses the point the factual matrix must be decided convention the term they chose to use echr did not seek to define qualify it bc it was understood concept of a judicial authority as used in a framework decision----english text

french text 6148 6149 both out ogether-one--five--four both english and french rtexts authentic. first. everyone has the security of liberty of person proscribed by law

lawful arrest of detention to bring before competent legal authority on suspicion of an offensce 553 everyone arrested shall be brought before a judge to exercise judicial power---and entitled to a reasonable trial

article 5 arrete l' autorite competant judicial

the ref to the competent judicial authority---ultimately the frameworkk decision provisions--jug autre provisions in the convention french text---framework decision--6291---article six--autorite judiciare etat mission competant pour delivre mandate authorite judiciare in the french----

claire's mate on right smiling and nodding same thing as judge authorized to issue judicial power second principle ECHR recognizes a diversity of legal systems but nevertheless imposes a boandary drawn very clearly re independence from th eexecutive and the parties--applied to mean prosecutors cannot exercise article 5 judicial authority to extradict shieser and switzerland i am sure your ladyship is right--german worse than french. judicial power---paragraph 27 promptly before contracting states and choice convention mentioned them---clearly recognize---sides magistra juge

judge power not kept to adjudicating disputes---prosecuting authorities---find judicial auth--(super sleepy from no sleep) stricter requirements--wishes to emphasize th elimits---paragraph 3---abbreviated form for judge 51c synonym for 5c iter alia be independent of executor or parties may not take the form of arrests. if the person in power does not enjoy independence. offer gaurantees---judicial power---officer not identical with a judeg---must satisfy certain conditions--in this the cour t confronts and appreciates the differenct legal systems---set s a clear limit on independence of the parties. context. all important. no one should be dispossessed. procedure---judicial category. the issue of deprivation of liberty. battery at 675 essentially to verify the provisions the person must be surrendered---removal of liberty---lose their job--a much more severe interferencer---than pretrial detention. where that leads us---european arrest warrant---what does that carry with it---individual should have the right to be heard---we will need to go to the framework decision----primary point--parties... must be taken to have done so-----two points---properly detained. giving the person a chance to be heard i agree my lord query a diffferent ---tho = affecting power-yes my lord---their rights have already been ... (see international law hit men) my case is they were legislating acquired case law---mean the same thing---a warrant or arrest----they would appear and ask to be let go---the problem of a single space---two from the right side judge speaks---nice voice--home country provisional detentions about the european legal space i respectfully agree with your lordship

the parties who eneterred into this decision for parties to maintain confidence safeguards will apply

european court commission of human rights---they are there for a purpose---how well established---how framework was enterred into abu katada is in the bundle

first of all the european commission volume six---authorities tab 57 338 decision of the european commission on human rights applicant on fraud---taken to stockholm---prosecutor informed of detention continued detention

passage relied on by the divisional court--under the heading article 3 definitions this explanatory memorandum accompanied a draft framework decision explanatory memorandum starts in the same bundle--article referred to definitions 1033 draft article three following EAW---request addressed for surrender of person who has been subject judgement issuing authority--executing authority---the executor of the EAW express authority---prosecutor and judicial authority

upon which the divisional court relied---

whether public prosecutor could exercise judicial power---under heading 2---at seventy four at 76 analysis of the swedish prosecution sytem this factor alone prosecutors have independence the officer must also be independent of the party decide whether or not prosecution to be indicted public prosecution has detain power on reasonable suspicion of offence. heirarchy. superior prosecutor to lower. over the page---examine the facts---public prosecutor does not fulfill the requirement of independence-2999 concerns france (told by wikileaks supporter one could lose half one's income for supporting human rights and i must delete my blog that has her first name somewhere---wow---how is that for an information revolutionary) if that is not the meaning---with respect of the provisonal principle

what is meant by judicial authority driven to ignore th eobvious i shall show the court---that its internally mendeev independence parties---judge meets those requirement second aspect our submission---the framework--in the knowledge of the case law---the wording in the french text the evolution of the framework decision the legislative process---as the two processes intertwined---the starting point---counsel--creation of an area principles---4808 mutual recognition of judicial decisions and judgements and says that should become the cornerstone---of in relation to extradition---ref to fast track extradition procedures

temporary UK delegation put forward 1999 document from the UK delegation mutual recognition criminal matters if you go to paragraph 11 how would mutual recognition work a minimum formality 4799 the common judicial area---public opinion---equivalent progress to rules and safeguards case law of the ECHR safeguards and guarantees the scope of mutual recognition---reference to search warrants---arrest warrants--judicial decisions---specifically---reference to extradition arrest warrant and convictions---mutual recognition---replace arrest warrant---fast tracked extradition to be developed without justic eministry approval---operates between UK And Ireland--this is historic the place where UK then broke its anti extraditon method a (of ireland jim curran says: no such place) section one one when a warrant has been issued by a judicial authority an application for the endorsement reason to believe person is in the area justice for execution in the part a system where by a judicial authority in ireland can arrest somebody in england five five third judicial authority

means judge judicial authority irish minister of justice: peace officer functions to serve warrant this list does not include PROSECUTORS or anyone who is not independent. we take it for granted: female judge:

the key point judical authority 4803 euro warrants this concept should now be examined in detail---the criteria for the right of the fugitive---the fast track---in order for a pan european arrest warrant ---trust and confidence--the next stage in the evolution--sept 2001 considerable stress---provisional court---core bundle--page 151 paragraph 39 of the judgement---

and there you can see the reliance---of the divisional point

explanatory document any authority proposal. wikileaks olympics: women lawyers for assange material interest: proposal: withdrawn what then happens is there is a meeting requested executing custodial sentence tiem 12:26

EC scrutiny committee measures being scrutinized at home as well--they cant be hermetically sealed from each other nice voice talking----second from the right in fact, the first key point---the definition---what a european arrest warrant is---the englisha nd other language versions--if you go to---article six---

the full excrutiating pleasure--article six---where here we have the issuing judicial authority

(wow what an awesome smile from kristinn hrafnsson) effectively the member states did their own drop complete drop at some poitn the commission---is not the decision maker---and we submit that it was wrong--the final wording of th eframework decision.

excelent law class--referred to in article three---shall refuse to execute in the following cases---so that is---the judical authority to execute arrest warrant commons or lords---commons---second to left making joke second over right---its on the WEB---thought there was considerable --let us make do with the other case---volume fourteen of the other--to provide for control extradition agreement s by contrast nonmember state first tiem member state----designated judicial authority judicial authority in an independent manner--would not be obliged ---in reply be issued by an issuing authority what is or is not a court clearly not authorities spelleld out on a bill

court decision ability anything other acceptance of the principle that the meaning---scutiny committee said--the next thing that happened---is that hte european commmission produced a green papper discussion document---for a european public prosecutor----proposal for misallocated funds---in the course of it---made comments---about european arrest warrant---passed to judges in order of seniority (so says jim curran) respect for fundamental rights compulsion---subject to review---so when you see a judge of freedomes---a court heading---conducting investigations (breathe deeply) european prosecutor could carry out---A---community investigation methods---hearing or questioning persons the lowest level of the heirarchy subject to review by the courts

freeze assets second level of the heirarchy his decision subject to judicial review---arrest warrant custody order these measures seriousness to obtain a ----in particular---european---any relevant national mutatis mutandis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutatis_mutandis applies well generally to wikileaks : changing that which needs be changed framework doc proceeds on basis the issue of the arrest warrant---common prosecution area---and said---areas jurisdiction if european prosecutor is in state A then they apply to a court and then get individ

three categories of coercive measures in a heriarchy decision subject to . . .

serious measre to be issue dby a court---heirarchy of different kinds of measures----evidence warrant issuing authority green paper bore some fruit tafu eu gets power to make regulations ---power in treaty for a eu prosecutor----it has not beeen done yet--the wording of the framework decision national legislation two key passages judicial decision issued by a member state-battery 27% (declining value was 7 hours once) the story continues in th e

(also delighted this is not a regurgitation of july hearings . . . yet) notes taken by mary rose lenore eng