Breaching International Law?

I've commented on the case of Assange before, here and here. And the case still rumbles on. Currently Assange is trying to claim asylum in Ecuador via their embassy in London, and in a rather unusual and controversial move, the UK Government is threaten to revoke the status of the Ecuadorean Embassy in order to arrest him - using a little known law passed in 1987 in response to the shooting of Yvonne Fletcher.

Carl Gardner, a former government lawyer, said the law was specifically designed to stop acts of terrorism of other breaches of international law within a foreign embassy, which Ecuador was not guilty of. 

The fallout to Britain's diplomatic reputation should such actions be taken would be enormous and hugely damaging:

Sir Tony Brenton, who served as the United Kingdom's ambassador to Russia between 2004 and 2008, said "arbitrarily" overturning the status of the building where Mr Assange has taken shelter to avoid extradition, would make life 'impossible' for British diplomats overseas.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme: "I think the Foreign Office have slightly overreached themselves here, for both practical and legal reasons.

"The Government itself has no interest in creating a situation where it is possible for governments everywhere to arbitrarily cut off diplomatic immunity. It would be very bad."

So why would they even contemplate creating such a situation? Well a clue can be found in the document presented to Ecuador by British diplomats in Quito (my emphasis):

We are aware, and surprised by media reports in the last 24 hours, that Ecuador is about to take a decision and proposes to grant asylum to Mr. Assange. The reports quote official sources. We note that the (Ecuadorean) President (Rafael Correa) has stated that no decision has yet been made.

We are concerned, if true, that this might undermine our efforts to agree a joint text setting out the positions of both countries, allowing Mr. Assange to leave the Embassy.

As we have previously set out, we must meet our legal obligations under the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision and the Extradition Act 2003, to arrest Mr. Assange and extradite him to Sweden. We remain committed to working with you amicably to resolve this matter. But we must be absolutely clear this means that should we receive a request for safe passage for Mr. Assange, after granting asylum, this would be refused, in line with our legal obligations.

Thus the priority is we must meet our EU obligations above and beyond our own country's interests even if it means international ridicule, condemnation and isolation. Happy days.

EU Rules

At no surprise to anyone, UKIP supporters or otherwise, who follow the evils of the European Arrest Warrant, Julian Assange has lost his extradition case:

The WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault. Assange will appeal, his legal team has confirmed. If they lose he will be sent to Sweden in 10 days.

Prima facie evidence in this country is no longer required for extradition:

So it became official. The highest court in the land [House of Lords] did not think it of general public interest if one of our citizens is consigned to a foreign prison system on trumped up charges.

And so it proves:

The defence had argued that the allegations against Assange were not offences in English law and therefore not grounds for extradition.

So:

Outside the court Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, said the ruling had not come as a surprise and reaffirmed the Assange team's concerns that adhering to the European arrest warrant (EAW) amounted to "tick box justice".

Therefore, democracy takes a back seat:

Stephens suggested Riddle had been "hamstrung" by the EAW. "We're pretty sure the secrecy and the way [the case] has been conducted so far have registered with this judge. He's just hamstrung," he told reporters.

As I blogged here, the Guardian are outraged but not enough to campaign against our membership of the EU - you reap what you sow.

Update: Assange is in the Telegraph (my emphasis):

The ruling against him came as a result of "a European arrest warrant system run amok", he claimed.

He said: "There was no consideration during this entire process as to the merit of the allegations made against me, no consideration or examination of even the complaints made in Sweden and of course we have always known we would appeal."

First They Came...

First they came for a grandmother,
and some didn't speak out because they read the Guardian / BBC.

Then they came for the students,
and some didn't speak out because they read the Guardian / BBC.

Then they came for the football fans,
and some didn't speak out because they read the Guardian / BBC.

Then they came for the business men,
and some didn't speak out because they read the Guardian / BBC.

Then they came for the holiday makers,
and some didn't speak out because they read the Guardian / BBC.

Then they came for the Guardian /BBC reader,
and it's whoops perhaps this European Arrest Warrant is not such a good thing after all (my emphasis):

One of the arguments Mr Assange's lawyers will raise concerns what is known as "double" or "dual criminality". This principle ensures that no one is extradited unless the allegations against them from the requesting state, amount to a criminal offence in English law.

His lawyers will argue that the first three allegations which cover unlawful coercion and sexual molestation do not constitute an offence under English law.

The equivalent offence would be sexual assault, which requires a lack of consent. It will be argued that the arrest warrant doesn't allege a lack of consent.

Double criminality, however, doesn't apply in the case of the fourth allegation, rape.

This is one of the list of offences under the European Arrest Warrant framework where the extraditing country has simply to tick a box.

Mr Assange's lawyers will seek to argue double criminality here by reference to European law, but it may prove a difficult argument to win.

Hardly a surprise - the EAW means that UK magistrates no longer consider prima facie evidence for extradition.