Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has lost his UK Supreme Court fight against extradition to Sweden to face accusations of sex offences. The judgement was reached by a majority of five to two, the court's president, Lord Phillips, told the hearing. The court ruled the extradition request had been "lawfully made". However, Mr Assange's lawyers have 14 days to consider the ruling before a final decision is made, leaving the possibility the case could be reheard. Dinah Rose QC, for Mr Assange, said an application would be made to reopen the case at the Supreme Court on the basis that its majority decision was made on legal points not argued during the appeal. Mr Assange, who has been on conditional bail in the UK, did not attend the hearing in central London. His lawyer later told reporters he was "stuck in traffic". The 40-year-old Australian is accused of raping one woman and "sexually molesting and coercing" another in Stockholm in August 2010, but he claims the allegations against him are politically motivated. Mr Assange's lawyers had asked the court to block his removal, arguing that a European arrest warrant issued against him was "invalid and unenforceable".

'Judicial authority'

The key legal question for the seven judges was whether the prosecutor who issued the arrest warrant had the judicial authority to do so under provisions of the 2003 Extradition Act. Lord Phillips, announcing the decision during a televised hearing at the UK's highest court, said the warrant had been issued in a way that was lawful. He said that five of the seven justices disagreed with Mr Assange when he had argued that the Swedish prosecutor behind the warrant could not, in legal terms, be considered a proper "judicial authority". This point of law had not been simple to resolve, said Lord Phillips. Ms Rose argued the ruling was unfair, telling the court that it appeared the case had been decided on a specific issue that had not been argued in court. She said the justices' decision to reject the appeal relied on a 1969 convention relating to how treaties should be implemented. But, she said, this convention had not been raised during the appeal - and therefore Mr Assange had been denied the right to respond to it. The application to reopen the case could be dismissed on paper, or another hearing could be held, legal expert Joshua Rozenberg told the BBC. Mr Assange's Wikileaks website published material from leaked diplomatic cables embarrassing several governments.