The defendant argued that he should not be extradited under a European Arest warrant to Sweden to face allegations of serious sexual assaults. He argued that the prosecutor requesting the extradition was not a judicial authority, that some offences did not satisfy the dual criminality rule, and that since the investigation was at an early stage, he was not yet an accused within the 2003 Act.
Held: The appeal failed. Although the EAW was issued by a prosecutor, the prosecutor was a judicial authority under the 2003 Act and Framework Decision. Mr Assange had been represented at a hearing of the Court of Appeal in Sweden, which had dismissed his appeal against the issuing an the arrest warrant. For a Framework Offence, dual criminality was not required, and ‘It is quite clear that the gravamen of the offence described is that Mr Assange had sexual intercourse with her without a condom and that she had only been prepared to consent to sexual intercourse with a condom. The description of the conduct makes clear that he consummated sexual intercourse when she was asleep and that she had insisted upon him wearing a condom . . it is difficult to see how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complaint alleges a state of sleep or half sleep, and secondly it avers that consent would not have been given without a condom. There is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.’
Sir John Thomas thought that: ‘it is clear that in the present state of development of the common area for justice, mutual confidence in the common area for justice and the operation of the EAW will not be advanced unless the courts of the executing state scrutinise requests for surrender under the EAW with the intensity required by the circumstances of each case . .’
. . And: ‘Although the approach in Enander is one that will ordinarily apply, the designation under article 6 does not, in our view, always compel the recognition by another member state as conclusive, if the authority is self evidently not a judicial authority within the meaning of that broad term in the Framework Decision. It is of some interest to note in the light of our observation at para 37 on the status of a Ministry of Justice that in 2007 the Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs in the Report on the Evaluation of the Transposition of the Framework Decision stated that the designation by some states directly or indirectly of the Ministry of Justice as a judicial authority was contrary to the terms of the Framework Decision. However there appear to have no instances where the Commission has taken action in respect of a body that should not have been designated as a judicial authority.
For example, if a warrant was issued by a Ministry of Justice which the member state had designated as an authority under article 6, it would not, in our view, be a valid EAW under the Framework Decision. The principles of mutual recognition and mutual confidence which underpin the common area for justice would not require the recognition of such a warrant, as it would self evidently not have been issued by a body which, on principles universally accepted in Europe, was judicial. In our view a national judge within the European Union is bound to uphold the principles of mutual recognition and mutual confidence for the reasons we have given at para 17; public confidence in the EAW would only be undermined by the recognition of an EAW issued by a Ministry of Justice in contradistinction to an EAW issued by a judge or prosecutor.
It was accepted by Miss Montgomery QC (who appeared for the prosecutor) that if circumstances arose where it could be said that the person issuing the EAW was not a judicial authority, the designating certificate issued by SOCA would not be conclusive. It would have to be challenged by judicial review. She was right to accept that the certificate was not conclusive, as under section 2(8) of the 2003 Act the function entrusted to SOCA is to certify that the issuing authority has the function of issuing EAWs. It does not certify that it is a judicial authority.’
Sir John Thomas P(QB)
[2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin)
Bailii, Judiciary
Extradition Act 2003
England and Wales
Citing:
At Magistrates Court – The judicial authority in Sweden v Assange 24-Feb-2011
(City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court – Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court) The authority sought the extradition of the defendant to Sweden to face prosecution on allegations of sexual assaults. The defendant argued that the Act allowed . .
Cited – Regina v Linekar CACD 21-Oct-1994
L appealed against his conviction for rape. His victim was a woman working as a prostitute. He said that he had simply made off afterwards without payment. He was convicted on the basis that he had procured the act by a false pretence by him that he . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority SC 30-May-2012
The defendant sought to resist his extradition under a European Arrest Warrant to Sweden to face charges of sexual assaults. He said that the prosecutor who sought the extradition was not a judicial authority within the Framework Decision.
Cited – Bucnys v Ministry of Justice SC 20-Nov-2013
The Court considered requests made by European Arrest Warrants for the surrender under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 of three persons wanted to serve sentences imposed upon their conviction in other member states of the European Union. The . .
Cited – Monica, Regina (on The Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 14-Dec-2018
Deception as to identity did not undermine consent
The claimant had been an environmental campaigner. She had had a sexual relationship with a man who was unknown to her an undercover police officer. She now challenged the decision not to prosecute him for rape.
Held: Her claim failed. Case . .
Cited – F, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions and Another Admn 24-Apr-2013
Application for judicial review of the refusal of the Director of Public Prosecutions to initiate a prosecution for rape and/or sexual assault of the claimant by her former partner. The claimant said that she had initially consented to sex with her . .
Cited – Lawrance, Regina v CACD 23-Jul-2020
Consent not removed by Lie as to Vasectomy
The defendant appealed from his conviction of rape. He had represented to his victim that he had had a vasectomy to secure consent which the court found had been vitiated.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Could a lie about fertility negate . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2021; Ref: scu.448098
