LONDON (AP) — WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange took his extradition battle to Britain’s Supreme Court on Wednesday, arguing that sending him to Sweden would violate a fundamental principle of natural law.
The two-day hearing is Mr. Assange‘s last chance to persuade British judges to quash efforts to send him to Scandinavia, where he is wanted on sex-crimes allegations.
In Britain as in the United States, generally only judges can issue arrest warrants, and British courts honor warrants issued only by what they describe as judicial authorities.
Assange lawyer Dinah Rose rejected that argument Wednesday, telling the seven justices gathered in Britain’s highest court that a prosecutor “does not, and indeed cannot as a matter of principle, exercise judicial authority.”
She said that wasn’t just a parochial British view, but rather a “fundamental principle” that stretches back 1,500 years to the Codex Justinius, the Byzantine legal code.
“No one may be a judge in their own case,” Ms. Rose said.
Ms. Rose spent the first 2½ hours of the hearing combing through British case law and parsing European draft treaties to buttress her case — in some cases slipping into French to make finer points and wording.
She claimed that those who set the rules for European extraditions expected that judicial authorities issuing warrants would be independent and impartial, noting that drafters dropped the reference to public prosecutors from the final version of their text.
Evidence showed, she said, that drafters believed “that the European arrest warrant was a very serious measure that has to be issued by a court.”
Karen Todner, a prominent extradition specialist, said before the case started that Mr. Assange‘s lawyers were unlikely to overcome the benefit of the doubt usually afforded to other European countries’ judicial systems.
British judges “absolutely defer” to their European counterparts’ justice systems, she said, adding that she would be “very surprised” if Mr. Assange’s team won the day.