Featured Articles

HP Stream is a Chromebook killer priced at $200

HP Stream is a Chromebook killer priced at $200

We have been hearing reports of a new breed of affordable Windows notebooks for months. It is alleged that a number…

More...
AMD Radeon R7 SSD line-up goes official

AMD Radeon R7 SSD line-up goes official

AMD has officially launched its first ever SSDs and all three are part of AMD’s AMD Radeon R7 SSD series.

More...
KitKat has more than a fifth of Android users

KitKat has more than a fifth of Android users

Android 4.4 is now running on more than a fifth of Android devices, according to Google’s latest figures.

More...
Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool is well known for its gamer cases with aggressive styling. However, the Dead Silence chassis offers consumers a new choice,…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Thursday, 31 May 2012 11:01

Wikileaks founder will have to face the music

Written by Nick Farrell



To be extradited to Sweden


Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has lost his UK Supreme Court fight against extradition to Sweden to face accusations of sex offences.

Lord Phillips, the court's president, said a majority of five justices to two had ruled against Mr Assange and said that the extradition request was lawful. Assange has 14 days to challenge the ruling and his solicitor, Gareth Peirce, said his lawyers would be asking the court to have another think about it.

Assange, who has been on conditional bail in the UK, faces charges of “surprise sex” in Sweden which losely translates as being the world's worst date.  He claims he was set up by the US who want to smear him and then extradite him from Sweden on charges of spying. Assange's legal team think they lost because the judgement from the UK's highest court is based on a point which was neither heard nor argued in the case.

The key legal question was if the Swedish prosecutor who issued it had the "judicial authority" to do so under the 2003 Extradition Act. Lord Phillips said five of the seven Supreme Court justices had agreed the warrant was lawful because the prosecutor could be considered a proper "judicial authority" even if this was not specifically mentioned in legislation or international agreements.

Nick Farrell

E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments