Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority
[2012] UKSC 22
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
A public prosecutor can constitute a 'judicial authority' for the purposes of issuing a European Arrest Warrant under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003; the term is not restricted to a court, judge or magistrate.
Facts
Julian Assange challenged the validity of a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Swedish Prosecution Authority seeking his surrender to face allegations of sexual molestation and rape against two women in Stockholm in August 2010; the warrant was issued and signed by a prosecutor, Marianne Ny. He argued that the Extradition Act 2003 requires an EAW to be issued by a 'judicial authority', and that a public prosecutor who remains a party to the criminal proceedings cannot qualify as such, so the warrant was invalid.
Judgment Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by a majority of five to two, Lord Mance and Lady Hale dissenting. The majority, led by Lord Phillips, held that 'judicial authority' in the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant is not confined to a court or judge but extends to a public prosecutor, having regard to the function and independence required of the issuing authority and to the subsequent practice of member states operating the EAW scheme. The dissentients considered that Parliament's assurances during the passage of the Extradition Act 2003 showed an intention to confine 'judicial authority' to a court, judge or magistrate.
Key Quotes
"Both the function and the independence of the prosecutor must be borne in mind when considering whether, under the Framework Decision, the term “judicial authority” can sensibly embrace a public prosecutor."
— Lord Phillips(verbatim, verified against the judgment)
Subsequent Treatment
Significant authority on the meaning of 'judicial authority' in EAW cases.
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help