assange v sweden case

7/30/2019 assange v sweden case

1/66

Status: Positive or Neutral Judicial Treatment

*1275 Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority

Supreme Court

30 May 2012[2012] UKSC 22

[2012] 2 W.L.R. 1275

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers PSC , Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe , Baroness Hale of Richmond ,Lord Mance , Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore , Lord Dyson JJSC , Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

2012 Feb 1 2; May 30

European UnionCouncil framework decisionJustice and home affairsWhether national law required to be interpreted in conformity with framework decision European Communities Act 1972 (c 68), ss 1, 2, 3 (as amended by European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986 (c 58), s 2( a) and European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 (c 7), ss 3, 8, Sch 1, Pt 1 ).Lisbon Treaty, Protocol No 36.

ExtraditionEuropean arrest warrantValidityEuropean arrest warrant issued by public prosecutor of requesting stateWhether public prosecutor judicial authorityWhether warrant valid Extradition Act 2003 (c 41), s 2 Council Framework Decision (2002/584/JHA), art 6 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Cmnd 7964), art 31.3(b)1

2

3

4

5

The appellant, while visiting Sweden, was the subject of complaints by two women of sexualmolestation and rape. He co-operated in the preliminary investigations before travelling toEngland, as he was free to do. Following further investigations the prosecutor in Swedenobtained a domestic detention order in absentia. The order was upheld on appeal on the basis ofsufficient evidence and following written argument as to its proportionality. Pursuant toCouncilFramework Decision (2002/584/JHA) on the European arrest warrant and surrender proceduresbetween member states of the European Union the respondent, the Swedish ProsecutionAuthority, issued a European arrest warrant, signed by the prosecutor, requesting the surrenderof the appellant. Sweden was a category 1 territory underPart 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 ,which gave effect to the Framework Decision. Its designated prosecutors were the solecompetent authority authorised to issue European arrest warrants seeking surrender for trial

under the Framework Decision. The appellant was arrested in the United Kingdom pursuant tothe warrant. At the extradition hearing the senior district judge reviewed the evidence and madethe order for surrender. On appeal the appellant challenged the validity of the arrest warrant onthe ground that a prosecutor was not an issuing judicial authority within the meaning ofarticle 6of the Framework Decision andsection 2(2) of the 2003 Act. He contended that a judicialauthority had to be, in effect, a judge or a court, and thus impartial and independent of theexecutive and the parties, and that the prosecutor, who remained a party in the criminalproceedings against him, did not qualify. The Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Divisiondismissed his appeal.

On the appellant's appeal and on the question whether the court was obliged to interpret nationallaw in conformity with the Framework Decision

*1276

Held , (1) thatCouncil Framework Decision (2002/584/JHA) was a third pillar measure agreedunder Title VI of the Treaty on European Union which fell outside the definition of Treaties in

Page1
http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I14AB3100E44911DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I14AB3100E44911DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE63D70B0E44A11DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I4011AE2041A611DD876BF1C31FC90B87http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IBD9F35F0E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IBD9F35F0E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IBD9F35F0E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IBD9F35F0E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I4011AE2041A611DD876BF1C31FC90B87http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE63D70B0E44A11DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I14AB3100E44911DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I14AB3100E44911DA8D70A0E70A78ED65


2/66

section 1 of the European Communities Act 1972 and therefore outside the scope ofsections 2and 3 of that Act; that, since Protocol No 36 to the Treaty of Lisbon currently preserved thatposition, the Framework Decision and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice in respect of theduty of conforming interpretation were not part of domestic law and the court's ruling on themeaning of the Framework Decision was not directly applicable and binding under domestic law;and that, accordingly, the only relevant principle in domestic law was the common law

presumption that theExtradition Act 2003 was intended to be read consistently with the UnitedKingdom's obligations under the Framework Decision (post, paras 10, 92, 98, 112113, 121,175176, 210, 212214, 216217).

Criminal proceedings against Pupino (Case C-105/03) [2006] QB 83, ECJ not applied.

(2) Dismissing the appeal (Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Mance JJSC dissenting), thatthe purpose of the Framework Decision was to replace the existing state-to-state process ofextradition with a single uniform system for surrender between judicial authorities, based on theprinciple of mutual trust and confidence and involving direct co-operation between thoseauthorities responsible for extradition processes; that such uniformity required each memberstate to give the same meaning to judicial authority; that, having regard to the drafting history ofthe Framework Decision and to the language used inarticle 6 , that phrase was capable ofbearing a meaning which was restricted to a judge or a court, or a wider meaning which would

include a public prosecutor; that, in determining the correct interpretation, it was legitimate,pursuant to article 31.3(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties , to take account ofany subsequent practice in the application of the Framework Decision which established theparties' agreement as to its meaning; that since a number of states had subsequently appointedprosecutors as issuing judicial authorities and had done so without objection from other stateswhich had appointed judges as such authorities and since no criticism of the practice appeared inthe reports made by the European Commission and the experts to the Council of Europe on theoperation of the Framework Decision, there was a sufficient practice to establish the memberstates' agreement; and that, accordingly, a prosecutor fell within the meaning of a judicialauthority inarticle 6(post, paras 10, 6771, 76, 92, 95, 106109, 127141, 151, 153154).

(3) That, since the 2003 Act had been passed to implement the Framework Decision, thecommon law presumption applied to its interpretation so that the phrase judicial authority borethe same meaning insection 2(2) of the 2003 Act as it did inarticle 6of the Framework Decision;that, any uncertainty or ambiguity in the statutory language was resolved by the requirement thatthe same meaning should be so applied; that there was no indication that Parliament hadintended any different effect and that, even if admissible, the parliamentary material relating todebates during enactment was not relevant; and that, accordingly, the prosecutor who issued thearrest warrant was a judicial authority within the meaning ofsection 2 of the 2003 Act and theappellant's challenge to the validity of the warrant failed (post, paras 1113, 80, 91, 92, 96100,114115, 118119, 170171).

Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593, HL(E) considered.

Decision of the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division[2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin)affirmed on different grounds.

The following cases are referred to in the judgments:

Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v Leden van de Ministeraad (Case C-303/05) [2007] ECRI-3633; [2008] All ER (EC) 317, ECJ

Caldarelli v Judge for Preliminary Investigations of the Court of Naples, Italy [2008] UKHL 51;[2008] 1 WLR 1724; [2009] 1 All ER 1, HL(E) *1277

Dabas v High Court of Justice in Madrid, Spain [2007] UKHL 6; [2007] 2 AC 31; [2007] 2 WLR254; [2007] 2 All ER 641, HL(E)

Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorassi AE v Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis (Case C-260/89) [1991] ECRI-2925, ECJ

Page2
http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I14AB3100E44911DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I12B30A80E44911DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I12B30A80E44911DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I5F98D210E42311DAA7CF8F68F6EE57ABhttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I923427C0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IBD9F35F0E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IBD9F35F0E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I1DC86CB0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I744EB54005AA11E18B0E8FB4A699C767http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I0D81B950449A11DCBCB8BB783E3F047Fhttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I0D81B950449A11DCBCB8BB783E3F047Fhttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID52CD8F05EC411DDAB7DC9767090C799http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID52CD8F05EC411DDAB7DC9767090C799http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB3C48B60C73811DBA419FED9F9DE0F02http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB3C48B60C73811DBA419FED9F9DE0F02http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA0EF8480E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA0EF8480E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA0EF8480E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA0EF8480E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB3C48B60C73811DBA419FED9F9DE0F02http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB3C48B60C73811DBA419FED9F9DE0F02http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID52CD8F05EC411DDAB7DC9767090C799http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID52CD8F05EC411DDAB7DC9767090C799http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I0D81B950449A11DCBCB8BB783E3F047Fhttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I0D81B950449A11DCBCB8BB783E3F047Fhttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I744EB54005AA11E18B0E8FB4A699C767http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I1DC86CB0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IBD9F35F0E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IBD9F35F0E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I923427C0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I5F98D210E42311DAA7CF8F68F6EE57ABhttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I12B30A80E44911DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I12B30A80E44911DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I14AB3100E44911DA8D70A0E70A78ED65


3/66

Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30; [2004] 2 AC 557; [2004] 3 WLR 113; [2004] 3 AllER 411, HL(E)

Ismail, In re [1999] 1 AC 320; [1998] 3 WLR 495; [1998] 3 All ER 1007, HL(E)

King's Prosecutor, Brussels, Office of the v Cando Armas [2005] UKHL 67; [2006] 2 AC 1;[2005] 3 WLR 1079; [2006] 1 All ER 647, HL(E)

Leymann and Pustovarov, Criminal proceedings against (Case C-388/08PPU) [2008] ECRI-8993, ECJ

Litster v Forth Dry Dock & Engineering Co Ltd [1990] 1 AC 546; [1989] 2 WLR 634; [1989]ICR 341; [1989] 1 All ER 1134, HL(Sc)

Louca v Public Prosecutor, Bielefeld, Germany [2008] EWHC 2907 (Admin); [2009] 2 AllER

719, DC;[2009] UKSC 4; [2009] 1 WLR 2550; [2010] 1 All ER 402, SC(E)

Medvedyev v France (2010) 51 EHRR 899, GC

Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593; [1992] 3 WLR 1032; [1993] ICR 291; [1993] 1 All ER 42, HL(E)

Piaggio v Italian Republic (unreported) 14 February 2007, Court of Cassation, Sez 6 (Italy)

Pickstone v Freemans plc [1989] AC 66; [1988] 3 WLR 265; [1988] ICR 697; [1988] 2 All ER803, HL(E)

Pupino, Criminal proceedings against (Case C-105/03) [2006] QB 83; [2005] 3 WLR 1102;[2006] All ER (EC) 142, ECJ

R v Lyons [2002] UKHL 44; [2003] 1 AC 976; [2002] 3 WLR 1562; [2002] 4 All ER1028,HL(E)

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Brind [1991] 1 AC 696; [1991] 2 WLR588; [1991] 1 All ER 720, HL(E)

R (IDT Card Services Ireland Ltd) v Customs and Excise Comrs [2006] EWCA Civ 29; [2006]STC 1252, CA

Schiesser v Switzerland (1979) 2 EHRR 417

Skoogstrm v Sweden (1983) 6 EHRR 77

Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2010] EWCA Civ103; [2010] STC 1251, CA

Thomas v Baptiste [2000] 2 AC 1; [1999] 3 WLR 249, PC

Page3
http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IAE780690E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IAE780690E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICAF43370E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I123A0CF0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I123A0CF0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE1AD7630E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE1AD7630E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IEAE26190C28011DD848392623F7BD591http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IEAE26190C28011DD848392623F7BD591http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9E248880D58311DE8C34A1577DE4350Ehttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I1DC86CB0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I1F0AB0B1E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I1F0AB0B1E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I923427C0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I923427C0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I56497390E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I56497390E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I657397B0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I657397B0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I79BEC0A1E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I79BEC0A1E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I988A82D0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE15C1CA020F911DF9B52864E278E6A31http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE15C1CA020F911DF9B52864E278E6A31http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICF373EE0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICF373EE0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE15C1CA020F911DF9B52864E278E6A31http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE15C1CA020F911DF9B52864E278E6A31http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I988A82D0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I79BEC0A1E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I79BEC0A1E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I657397B0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I657397B0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I56497390E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I56497390E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I923427C0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I923427C0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I1F0AB0B1E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I1F0AB0B1E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I1DC86CB0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9E248880D58311DE8C34A1577DE4350Ehttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IEAE26190C28011DD848392623F7BD591http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IEAE26190C28011DD848392623F7BD591http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE1AD7630E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE1AD7630E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I123A0CF0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I123A0CF0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICAF43370E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IAE780690E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IAE780690E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9


4/66

Vodafone 2 v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2009] EWCA Civ 446; [2010] Ch 77; [2010] 2WLR 288; [2010] Bus LR 96, CA

The following additional cases were cited in argument:

Algemene Transport-en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos (NV) v Netherlands InlandRevenue Administration (Case 26/62) [1963] ECR 1, ECJ

Assenov v Bulgaria (1998) 28 EHRR 652

Association belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL v Conseil des ministres (CaseC-236/09) [2012] All ER (EC) 441, ECJ

Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109; [1988] 3 WLR776;[1988] 3 All ER 545, HL(E)

Baksys v Ministry of Justice of the Republic ofLithuania [2007] EWHC 2838 (Admin), DC

Ballan, In re Application for Judicial Review [2008] NIQB 140

Baranauskas v Ministry of Justice of the Republic ofLithuania [2009] EWHC 1859 (Admin),DC

Bentley v Government of the United States of America [2005] EWHC 1078 (Admin), DC

Bolkiah, Prince Jefri v State of Brunei Darussalem [2007] UKPC 62, PC*1278 *1279 *1280

Brincat v Italy (1992) 16 EHRR 591

Brusco v France (Application No 1466/07) (unreported) given 14 October 2010, ECtHR

Blbl v Turkey (Application No 47297/99) (unreported) given 22 May 2007, ECtHR

Cadder v HM Advocate (HM Advocate General for Scotland intervening) [2010] UKSC43;[2010] 1 WLR 2601, SC(Sc)

Chalitovas v State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic ofLithuania [2006]EWHC 1978 (Admin), DC

Chronopost SA v Commission of the European Communities (France intervening) (JoinedCases C-341/06P and C-342/06P) [2008] ECR I-4777, ECJ

Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities (CaseC-176/03) [2006] All ER (EC) 1; [2006] ECR I-7879, ECJ

De Jong v The Netherlands (1984) 8 EHRR 20

Page4
http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I50737E90474711DEA68AD35FCEE89EC9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I50737E90474711DEA68AD35FCEE89EC9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I11736190E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I11736190E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I67DE99B0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I54E98210544911E0AA67941B64FA0E48http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I54E98210544911E0AA67941B64FA0E48http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I693D8D70E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I693D8D70E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I22EC88308E8A11DC9CEDA458CF7668E4http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I5BB68DF2678711DEB2D8BFDE34E9867Dhttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I73C04990E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I22EDE7C08E8A11DC9CEDA458CF7668E4http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I7A80F4A0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I20249AA0E14F11DF8642CB1E2AE7F837http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I20249AA0E14F11DF8642CB1E2AE7F837http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE5138FA1003611DBB3E7976425AFED86http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE5138FA1003611DBB3E7976425AFED86http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB2371B80814711DDB414D31AC0FCE653http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB2371B80814711DDB414D31AC0FCE653http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IF8FBD0605D5511DF9ECEAF14E731DA01http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IF8FBD0605D5511DF9ECEAF14E731DA01http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I95AFB9F0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I95AFB9F0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IF8FBD0605D5511DF9ECEAF14E731DA01http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IF8FBD0605D5511DF9ECEAF14E731DA01http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB2371B80814711DDB414D31AC0FCE653http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB2371B80814711DDB414D31AC0FCE653http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE5138FA1003611DBB3E7976425AFED86http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE5138FA1003611DBB3E7976425AFED86http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I20249AA0E14F11DF8642CB1E2AE7F837http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I20249AA0E14F11DF8642CB1E2AE7F837http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I7A80F4A0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I22EDE7C08E8A11DC9CEDA458CF7668E4http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I73C04990E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I5BB68DF2678711DEB2D8BFDE34E9867Dhttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I22EC88308E8A11DC9CEDA458CF7668E4http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I693D8D70E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I693D8D70E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I54E98210544911E0AA67941B64FA0E48http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I54E98210544911E0AA67941B64FA0E48http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I67DE99B0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I11736190E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I11736190E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I50737E90474711DEA68AD35FCEE89EC9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I50737E90474711DEA68AD35FCEE89EC9


5/66

Dell'Orto, Criminal proceedings against (Case C-467/05) [2007] ECR I-5557, ECJ

Duinhof v The Netherlands (1984) 13 EHRR 478

Enander v Governor of Prison Brixton [2005] EWHC 3036 (Admin); [2006] 1 CMLR 999, DC

European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Case C-540/03) [2007] All ER (EC)193; [2006] ECR I-5769, ECJ

Firma & Nold KG v Commission of the European Communities (Case 4/73) [1974] ECR 491,ECJ

Frome United Breweries Co Ltd v Keepers of the Peace and Justices for the County of Bath[1926] AC 586, HL(E)

Garland v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1983] 2 AC 751; [1982] 2 WLR 918; [1982] ICR 420;[1982] 2 All ER 402, HL(E)

Garlicki v Poland (Application No 36921/07) (unreported) given 14 June 2011, ECtHR

Goatley v HM Advocate [2006] HCJAC 55; 2008 JC 1

Hamburg Public Prosecutor's Officev Altun [2011] EWHC 397 (Admin), DC

Harmatos v Office of the King's Prosecutor in Dendermond, Belgium [2011] EWHC1598(Admin), DC

Huber v Switzerland (Application No 12794/87) (unreported) given 23 October 1990, ECtHR

IB, Proceedings concerning (Case C-306/09) [2011] 1 WLR 2227, ECJ

Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr-und Vorratsstelle fr Getreide undFuttermittel (Case 11/70) [1970] ECR 1125, ECJ

Janovic v Prosecutor General's Office,Lithuania [2011] EWHC 710 (Admin), DC

Jasnski v Poland (Application No 30865/96) (unreported) given 20 December 2005, ECtHR

Johnson v State Prosecutor at the Tribunal de Grand Instance de Lille,France [2009] EWHC2830 (Admin), DC

Kadi v Council of the European Union (Joined Cases C-402/05P and C-415/05P) [2009]AC1225; [2009] 3 WLR 872, ECJ

Kanda v Government of Malaya [1962] AC 322; [1962] 2 WLR 1153, PC

Page5
http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I984A6CA073C811DC949CFA235D564474http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9BB8D4D0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA1768ED1E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IFC76112054ED11DBAC92967F5EE40120http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IFC76112054ED11DBAC92967F5EE40120http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICB4C8CA0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICB4C8CA0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IABD59651E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IABD59651E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IACF202D0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IACF202D0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I6697065089AE11DBA9FBDC5145142FF0http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I8DEF14F0452411E08BC9C2FD54F90DB4http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I555613009DE911E08D47C341BE3FD6A5http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I555613009DE911E08D47C341BE3FD6A5http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE59E98104E9311E0B7B4E4A46768606Chttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICA769F01E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICA769F01E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IC6D5BC90598A11E0B5A6B2F52DE506C3http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I15CEC9E0CF3A11DE9D82956777A3C789http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I15CEC9E0CF3A11DE9D82956777A3C789http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA427E020B5F311DDA170AC525BD9F690http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA427E020B5F311DDA170AC525BD9F690http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID184CDD0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID184CDD0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA427E020B5F311DDA170AC525BD9F690http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA427E020B5F311DDA170AC525BD9F690http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I15CEC9E0CF3A11DE9D82956777A3C789http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I15CEC9E0CF3A11DE9D82956777A3C789http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IC6D5BC90598A11E0B5A6B2F52DE506C3http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICA769F01E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICA769F01E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE59E98104E9311E0B7B4E4A46768606Chttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I555613009DE911E08D47C341BE3FD6A5http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I555613009DE911E08D47C341BE3FD6A5http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I8DEF14F0452411E08BC9C2FD54F90DB4http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I6697065089AE11DBA9FBDC5145142FF0http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IACF202D0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IACF202D0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IABD59651E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IABD59651E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICB4C8CA0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICB4C8CA0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IFC76112054ED11DBAC92967F5EE40120http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IFC76112054ED11DBAC92967F5EE40120http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA1768ED1E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9BB8D4D0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I984A6CA073C811DC949CFA235D564474


6/66

Klamecki v Poland (No 2) (2003) 39 EHRR 137

Kremzow v Austrian State (Case C-299/95) [1997] ECR I-2629, ECJ

Kretzinger v Hauptzollamt Augsburg (Case C-288/05) [2007] ECR I-6441, ECJ

Kckdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG (Case C-555/07) [2010] All ER (EC) 867, ECJ

Lopetas v Ministry of Justice of the Republic ofLithuania [2007] EWHC 2407 (Admin), DC

MSS v Belgium and Greece (2011) 53 EHRR 28

Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacin SA (Case C-106/89) [1990] ECRI-4135, ECJ*1279 *1280

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Altaravicius [2006] IEHC 270; [2006] 2 IR 265

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Koncis [2011] IESC 37, SC (Eire)

Moulin v France (Application No 37104/06) (unreported) given 23 November 2010, ECtHR

NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10)[2012] 2 CMLR 265, ECJ

Niedbala v Poland (2000) 33 EHRR 1137

Nikolova v Bulgaria (1999) 31 EHRR 64

Omega Spielhallen-und Automatenaufstellungs GmbH v Oberbrgermeisterin derBundesstadt Bonn (Case C-36/02) [2004] ECR I-9609, ECJ

Ovakimyan v Attorney General of Republic of Cyprus (unreported) 19 September 2005,Supreme Court of Cyprus

Pantea v Romania (2003) 40 EHRR 627

Parasiliti-Mollica v Deputy Public Prosecutor of Messina, Italy [2005] EWHC 3262 (Admin),DC

Pauwels v Belgium (1988) 11 EHRR 238

Penta v District Public Prosecutor's Office Zwolle-Lelystad, TheNetherlands [2011] EWHC992 (Admin)

Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV (Joined Cases C-397403/01)[2005] ICR 1307; [2004] ECR I-8835, ECJ

Page6
http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID564C720E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IC07699E05D4C11DF96A9E3C5258457E8http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID7ACE7D032FA11DF8926BDDE1156A61Chttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID252A9D081EC11DCB9BECC544B1039EFhttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I690C4470FC5B11E096EFBAC854776AF0http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IEECCD630E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IEECCD630E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I142402A0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I142402A0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I1ACB0B30E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IF206DAA058E711E086DBF7FDA315721Chttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IF206DAA058E711E086DBF7FDA315721Chttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I1E72DD80E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I1E72DD80E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I1E72DD80E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I1E72DD80E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IF206DAA058E711E086DBF7FDA315721Chttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IF206DAA058E711E086DBF7FDA315721Chttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I1ACB0B30E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I142402A0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I142402A0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IEECCD630E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IEECCD630E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I690C4470FC5B11E096EFBAC854776AF0http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID252A9D081EC11DCB9BECC544B1039EFhttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID7ACE7D032FA11DF8926BDDE1156A61Chttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IC07699E05D4C11DF96A9E3C5258457E8http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID564C720E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9


7/66

Pishchalnikov v Russia (Application No 7025/04) (unreported) given 24 September 2009,ECtHR

Prosecutor General of Turin, Office of the v Barone [2010] EWHC 3004 (Admin)

R v Asfaw (United Nations Comr for Refugees intervening) [2008] UKHL 31; [2008] AC 1061;[2008] 2 WLR 1178; [2008] 3 All ER 775, HL(E)

R v Bow Street Magistrates' Court, Ex p Van der Holst (1985) 83 Cr App R 114, DC

R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [2000] 1 AC119; [1999] 2 WLR 272; [1999] 1 All ER 577, HL(E)

R v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex p Sinclair [1991] 2 AC 64; [1991] 2 WLR 1028; [1991]2 All ER 366, HL(E)

R v Henn [1981] AC 850; [1980] 2 WLR 597; [1980] 2 All ER 166, ECJ

R v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex p First City Trading Ltd [1997] 1 CMLR 250

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115; [1999] 3 WLR328; [1999] 3 All ER 400, HL(E)

R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (JUSTICE intervening)[2008] UKHL 60; [2009] AC 756; [2008] 3 WLR 568; [2008] 4 All ER 927, HL(E)

R (Dikmonas) v Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania [2010] EWHC 1222 (Admin)

R (European Roma Rights Centre) v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport (United NationsComr for Refugees intervening) [2003] EWCA Civ 666; [2004] QB 811; [2004] 2 WLR147;[2003] 4 All ER 247, CA; [2004] UKHL 55; [2005] 2 AC 1; [2005] 2 WLR 1; [2005] 1 All ER527, HL(E)

R (Guisto) v Governor of Brixton Prison [2003] UKHL 19; [2004] 1 AC 101; [2003] 2WLR1089; [2003] 2 All ER 647, HL(E)

R (Kuprevicius) v Vice Minister of Justice, Ministry of Justice,Lithuania [2006] EWHC 1518(Admin), DC

R (Lorencas) v Deputy Prosecutor General,Lithuania [2011] EWHC 2941 (Admin)

Rimas v Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania [2011] EWHC 2084 (Admin)

Salduz v Turkey (2008) 49 EHRR 421, GC

Salomon v Comrs of Customs and Excise [1967] 2 QB 116; [1966] 3 WLR 1223; [1966] 3AllER 871, CA*1280

Page7
http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA02939D0F43311DF893DC235F2AB4E73http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I359BFB6027BD11DD9E2AF1E42F0487E2http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I359BFB6027BD11DD9E2AF1E42F0487E2http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I3427A890E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I3429A460E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I3429A460E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I47AF8180E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I47AF8180E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I4C4C6230E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I5A5B0430E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I693385E0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I693385E0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID55F81B05EC411DDAB7DC9767090C799http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID55F81B05EC411DDAB7DC9767090C799http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I2B0DC6906AA711DF9D07F92D9B147E73http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I793433E0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I793433E0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I793433E0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I793433E0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB5A7EE30E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB5A7EE30E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICFE64650EBF911DAA3B5B55CD4038E68http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICFE64650EBF911DAA3B5B55CD4038E68http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE943C3300CBD11E1B9A4E14BC10CF699http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I0E8566B1B1B711E0A61FC99DF4995BDAhttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I976F27C0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I976F27C0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I976F27C0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I976F27C0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I0E8566B1B1B711E0A61FC99DF4995BDAhttp://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE943C3300CBD11E1B9A4E14BC10CF699http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICFE64650EBF911DAA3B5B55CD4038E68http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICFE64650EBF911DAA3B5B55CD4038E68http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB5A7EE30E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB5A7EE30E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I793433E0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I793433E0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I793433E0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I793433E0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I2B0DC6906AA711DF9D07F92D9B147E73http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID55F81B05EC411DDAB7DC9767090C799http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID55F81B05EC411DDAB7DC9767090C799http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I693385E0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I693385E0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I5A5B0430E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I4C4C6230E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I47AF8180E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I47AF8180E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I3429A460E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I3429A460E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I3427A890E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I359BFB6027BD11DD9E2AF1E42F0487E2http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I359BFB6027BD11DD9E2AF1E42F0487E2http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IA02939D0F43311DF893DC235F2AB4E73


8/66

Shishkov v Bulgaria (Application No 38822/97) (unreported) given 9 January 2003, ECtHR

Speight, In re Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (unreported) 31 July 1996, DC

Thompson v Public Prosecutor of Boulogne sur Mer [2008] EWHC 2787 (Admin); [2009] ACD15, DC

Tomasi v France (1992) 15 EHRR 1

Van der Sluijs v The Netherlands (1984) 13 EHRR 461

Van Duyn v Home Office (Case 41/74) [1975] Ch 358; [1975] 2 WLR 760; [1975] 3 All ER190, [1974] ECR 1337, ECJ

Vey v Office of the Public Prosecutor of the County Court of Montlucon, France [2006] EWHC760 (Admin), DC

Von Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Case 14/83) [1984] ECR 1891, ECJ

Wright v Scottish Ministers (No 2) [2005] CSIH 40; 2005 1 SC 453; 2005 SLT 613

Zlnsat Spol SRO v Bulgaria (Application No 57785/00) (unreported) given 15 June 2006,ECtHR

APPEAL from the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench DivisionBy an appellant's notice the appellant, Julian Assange, appealed against the order of Senior DistrictJudge Riddle, sitting at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 24 February 2010, directing hisextradition to Sweden following the issue of a European arrest warrant by theSwedish ProsecutionAuthority. On 2 November 2011 the Divisional Court (Sir John Thomas P and Ouseley J)[2011]EWHC 2849 (Admin) dismissed his appeal. On 5 December 2011 they refused his application forpermission to appeal to the Supreme Court, but certified undersection 32 of the Extradition Act 2003that a point of law of general public importance was involved in the decision, namely: Whether aEuropean arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor was a validPart 1 warrant issued by a judicialauthority within the meaning ofsections 2(2) and 66 of the Extradition Act 2003.

Pursuant to permission granted on 16 December 2011 by the Supreme Court (Lord Hope ofCraighead DPSC, Lord Mance and Lord Dyson JJSC), the appellant appealed on the sole questionas certified, on the following grounds, inter alia. (1) A public prosecutor could not be regarded as a judicial authority within the meaning ofsections 2(2) and 66 of the Extradition Act 2003 . As anessential feature a judicial authority had to be impartial and independent of the executive and theparties, a warrant issued by a prosecutor was not, on ordinary principles of statutory construction, awarrant issued by a judicial authority. (2) The 2003 Act did not define a judicial authority. On its plainmeaning the term referred to a body or person independently exercising judicial power, as a judge,magistrate or court, and there was no statutory provision which deemed the term to mean anythingbeyond that plain meaning. (3) Parliament specifically intended that a judicial authority would mean a judge and references to the parliamentary debates supported that conclusion. (4) The interpretation ofjudicial authority given by the Divisional Court was inconsistent with the established case law of theEuropean Court and Commission of Human Rights under article 5.3 of the European Convention forthe Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms . (5)Council Framework Decision(2002/584/JHA)did not on its face contradict the plain meaning of the term judicial authority in the

2003 Act as referring to courts and judges. (6) In any event the Framework Decision was not part ofdomestic law and Parliament, having chosen to implement the decision indirectly by*1281 providing

Page8
http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB8DB3EA0E38311DD84A093E4FDA4CD24http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB8DB3EA0E38311DD84A093E4FDA4CD24http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID68312F0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE689DB70E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE68F32A0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE68F32A0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE73B2A10E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE73B2A10E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE7BBCBC0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I0A14FA70E42911DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I744EB54005AA11E18B0E8FB4A699C767http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I744EB54005AA11E18B0E8FB4A699C767http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I744EB54005AA11E18B0E8FB4A699C767http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I18DD5E70E44811DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICCA3F7C0E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICCA3F7C0E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICCA3F7C0E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICCA3F7C0E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I18DD5E70E44811DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I744EB54005AA11E18B0E8FB4A699C767http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I744EB54005AA11E18B0E8FB4A699C767http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I744EB54005AA11E18B0E8FB4A699C767http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I0A14FA70E42911DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE7BBCBC0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE73B2A10E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE73B2A10E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE68F32A0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE68F32A0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IE689DB70E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ID68312F0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB8DB3EA0E38311DD84A093E4FDA4CD24http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB8DB3EA0E38311DD84A093E4FDA4CD24


9/66

additional safeguards in the 2003 Act, had deviated in a number of ways from the Decision and itsplain statutory language was not to be circumvented.

The Lord Advocate for Scotland and, jointly, Mr Gerard Batten MEP and Mr Vladimir Bukovskyintervened in the appeal in writing only.

The facts are stated in the judgment of Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers PSC.

After judgment was given counsel for the appellant applied for and was granted a stay of 14 days toenable her to decide whether she would apply to reopen the decision on the ground that the majorityappeared to have based their decision on the interpretation of the 1969 Vienna Treaty on the Law ofTreaties on which no argument had been heard.

Dinah Rose QC , Mark Summers and Helen Law (instructed byBirnberg Peirce & Partners ) for theappellant.

Clare Montgomery QC , Aaron Walters and Hannah Pye (instructed byCrown Prosecution Service,Special Crime Division ) for the prosecution authority.

The court took time for consideration.

30 May 2012. The following judgments were handed down.

LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS PSC

Introduction

1 On 2 December 2010 the Swedish Prosecution Authority (the Prosecutor), who is the respondentto this appeal, issued a European arrest warrant (EAW) signed by Marianne Ny, a prosecutor,requesting the arrest and surrender of Mr Assange, the appellant. Mr Assange was, at the time, inEngland, as he still is. The offences of which he is accused and in respect of which his surrender issought are alleged to have been committed in Stockholm against two women in August 2010. Theyinclude sexual molestation and, in one case, rape. At the extradition hearing before the seniordistrict judge, and subsequently on appeal to the Divisional Court, he unsuccessfully challenged the

validity of the EAW on a number of grounds. This appeal relates to only one of these.Section 2(2) inPart 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 requires an EAW to be issued by a judicial authority. Mr Assangecontends that the Prosecutor does not fall within the meaning of that phrase and that, accordingly, theEAW is invalid. This point of law is of general importance, for in the case of quite a number ofmember states EAWs are issued by public prosecutors. Its resolution does not turn on the facts of MrAssange's case. I shall, accordingly, say no more about them at this stage, although I shall revertbriefly to them towards the end of this judgment.

2 Part 1 of the 2003 Act was passed to give effect to the Council of the European Union FrameworkDecision on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between member states of theEuropean Union 2002/584/JHA ( OJ 2002 L190 , p 1) (the Framework Decision). I annexe a copy ofthe English version of the Framework Decision to this judgment6 . *1282 As can be seen, the phrasejudicial authority is used in a number of places in the Framework Decision. In particular it is used inarticle 6, which provides: 1. The issuing judicial authority shall be the judicial authority of the issuingmember state which is competent to issue a European arrest warrant by virtue of the law of thatstate.

3 It is Mr Assange's primary case, as presented by Miss Dinah Rose QC, that judicial authoritybears the same meaning in the Framework Decision as it bears in the 2003 Act, so that theProsecutor does not fall within the definition of issuing judicial authority withinarticle 6 of theFramework Decision. Alternatively Miss Rose submits that, if judicial authority inarticle 6 of theFramework Decision has a meaning wide enough to embrace the Prosecutor, it has a different andnarrower meaning in the 2003 Act. She seeks to support that meaning by reference to parliamentarymaterial.

The issue

4 Miss Rose contends that a judicial authority must be a person who is competent to exercise judicial authority and that such competence requires impartiality and independence of both the

Page9
http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65


10/66

executive and the parties. As, in Sweden, the Prosecutor is and will remain a party in the criminalprocess against Mr Assange, she cannot qualify as a judicial authority. In effect, Miss Rose'ssubmission is that a judicial authority must be some kind of court or judge.

5 Miss Clare Montgomery QC for the Prosecutor contends that the phrase judicial authority, in thecontext of the Framework Decision, and other European instruments, bears a broad and autonomous

meaning. It describes any person or body authorised to play a part in the judicial process. The termembraces a variety of bodies, some of which have the qualities of impartiality and independence onwhich Miss Rose relies, and some of which do not. In some parts of the Framework Decision the termjudicial authority describes one type, in other parts another. A prosecutor properly falls within thedescription judicial authority and is capable of being the judicial authority competent to issue anEAW underarticle 6 if the law of the state so provides. Judicial authority must be given the samemeaning in the 2003 Act as it bears in the Framework Decision.

The approach to the interpretation of Part 1 of the 2003 Act

6 Part 1 of the 2003 Act has unfortunately spawned more than its share of issues of law that havereached the highest level. InOffice of the King's Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas [2006] 2 AC1 ,para 8 Lord Bingham of Cornhill remarked that interpretation ofPart 1 of the 2003 Act

must be approached on the twin assumptions that Parliament did not intend theprovisions of Part 1 to be inconsistent with the Framework Decision and that, whileParliament might properly provide for a greater measure of co-operation by the UnitedKingdom than the Decision required, it did not intend to provide for less.

7 Lord Hope of Craighead at para 24 adopted what might appear to be a conflicting approach. Heexpressed the view that the task of interpretingPart 1 so as to give effect to the Framework Decisionshould be approached on the assumption that, where there were differences, these were regarded by*1283 Parliament as a necessary protection against an unlawful infringement on the right to liberty.Both Lord Bingham and Lord Hope inDabas v High Court of Justice in Madrid, Spain [2007] 2 AC 31returned to this topic after the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communitieshad commented on it when giving a preliminary ruling inCriminal proceedings against Pupino (CaseC-105/03) [2006] QB 83 , to which I shall shortly refer. The House was concerned with the effect ofsection 64(2)(b) of the 2003 Act, which on its face appears to require an EAW to be accompanied bya separate certificate that the conduct in respect of which surrender is sought falls within theframework list. The issue was whether it was sufficient that the warrant itself so certified. In holding, inagreement with the rest of the House, that it was, Lord Hope, after citing from Pupino , referred withapproval to Lord Bingham's statement in Cando Armas and remarked that the imposition of additionalformalities not found in the Framework Decision by one member state to suit its own purposes wouldtend to frustrate the objectives of the Decision.

8 Article 34(2)(b)EU of the EU Treaty provides:

Framework decisions shall be binding upon the member states as to the result to beachieved but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.They shall not entail direct effect.

In Pupino [2006] QB 83, para 43, the Court of Justice held:

When applying the national law, the national court that is called on to interpret it mustdo so as far as possible in the light of the wording and purpose of the frameworkdecision in order to attain the result which it pursues and thus comply with article34(2)(b)EU.

9 In a well reasoned written joint intervention Mr Gerard Batten MEP and Mr Vladimir Bukovskycomment on the uncertainty of the scope of the phrases result to be achieved, purpose of the

framework directive and result which it pursues. They argue that these should be treated asreferring to the specific objectives of the particular Framework Decision and not the wider objectives

Page10
http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I123A0CF0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB3C48B60C73811DBA419FED9F9DE0F02http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I923427C0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I923427C0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I7B4A6D10E45111DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I923427C0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I923427C0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I7B4A6D10E45111DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I923427C0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I923427C0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB3C48B60C73811DBA419FED9F9DE0F02http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I123A0CF0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09


11/66

of the EU Treaty that the specific objectives may be designed to serve. I have concluded that theirinteresting discussion does not bear on the issue that this court has to resolve. What is in issue inrespect of the construction of the 2003 Act is not a suggestion that the English court ought, wheninterpreting the 2003 Act, to follow some general objective that the Framework Decision is designedto advance. It is the narrow issue of whether the words judicial authority insection 2(2) of the 2003Act should, if possible, be accorded the same meaning as those two words bear in the parallelrequirement inarticle 6of the Framework Decision.10 I have read with admiration Lord Mance JSC's analysis of the effect of the decision in Pupino and Iaccept, for the reasons that he gives, that it does notbind this court to interpretPart 1 of the 2003 Act,in so far as this is possible, in a manner that accords with the Framework Decision. I consider, nonethe less that it is plain that the court should do so. This is not merely because of the presumption thatour domestic law will accord with our international obligations. As Lord Mance JSC himselfacknowledges at para 201 of his judgmentPart 1 of the 2003 Act was enacted in order to give effectto the Framework Decision. The immediate objective of that Decision is to create a single uniformsystem for the surrender of those accused or*1284 convicted of the more serious criminal offences.That objective will only be achieved if each of the member states gives the same meaning to judicialauthority. If different member states give different meaning to those two words, that uniformity will bedestroyed. In these circumstances it is hard to conceive that Parliament, in breach of the internationalobligations of this country, set out to pass legislation that was at odds with the Framework Decision. Itis even more difficult to conceive that Parliament took such a course without making it plain that it wasdoing so. For this reason it is logical to approach the interpretation of the words judicial authority onthe presumption that Parliament intended that they should bear the same meaning inPart 1 of the2003 Act as they do in the Framework Decision.

Parliamentary material

11 Counsel for both parties placed before us a substantial volume of parliamentary material withoutany close analysis as to whether this was admissible as an aid to interpretation of the 2003 Act underthe doctrine ofPepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 or for any other reason. I add those last words becausesome of this material related to proceedings of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committeeand the House of Lords Select Committee on European Union which predated both the finalFramework Decision and, of course, the Extradition Bill which became the 2003 Act. While thismaterial may provide some insight into the approach of the United Kingdom in negotiations thatpreceded the Framework Decision and into the understanding of Members of Parliament as to theeffect of that Decision, I do not see how it can be directly admissible under Pepper v Hart , save to theextent that it was referred to in parliamentary debate on the Bill.

12 More generally it is open to question whether there is room for the application of Pepper v Harthaving regard to the requirement to give the words judicial authority the same meaning in the 2003Act as they bear in the Framework Decision. That requirement should resolve any ambiguity in thelanguage of the statute. Having said this I shall summarise shortly the effect of the parliamentarymaterial. It evidences a general understanding and intention that the words judicial authority wouldand should bear the same meaning in the Act as they bore in the Framework Decision. As to thatmeaning there are statements in debate in the House of Lords, on the part of both members and a

minister, that appear to reflect an understanding that the judicial authority would be a court or judge.The clearest ministerial statement is, however, that of the Under-Secretary of State, Mr Ainsworth, on9 January 2003 to Standing Committee D (Hansard (HL Debates), col 47), referred to by theDivisional Court at para 26:

We expect that European arrest warrants will be issued in future by exactly the sameauthorities as issue warrants under the current arrest procedures. We intend to do thatin the United Kingdom. There is no reason to suppose that our intentions are differentfrom those of any other European country. The Bill is drafted in such a way as to includeall those authorities that currently issue arrest warrants, as issuing authorities. I have yetto hear an argument that says that we should change that.

13 If the parliamentary material to which I have referred were admissible, I would find it inconclusive.For the reasons that I have given I approach the interpretation of the words judicial authority inPart1 of *1285 the 2003 Act on the basis that they must, if possible, be given the same meaning as they

Page11
http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IBD9F35F0E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I1DC86CB0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I1DC86CB0E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICC304E60E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=I9B18DE69F60546EE9D412FB5DD259B09http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?sp=uksussex-238&crumb-action=reset&docguid=IBD9F35F0E45211DA8D70A0E70A78ED65


12/66

bear in the Framework Decision. I turn to consider that meaning.

The meaning of judicial authority in the Framework Decision

14 It is necessary at the outset to decide how the task of interpreting the Framework Decision shouldbe approached. Craies on Legislation , 9th ed (2008), remarks at para 31.1.21 that the text of muchEuropean legislation is arrived at more through a process of political compromise, so that individualwords may be chosen less for their legal certainty than for their political acceptability. That commentmay be particularly pertinent in the present context in that, as we shall see, an earlier draft of theFramework Decision left no doubt as to the meaning of judicial authority but a subsequent draftexpunged the definition that made this clear. The reason for and effect of this change lies at the heartof the problem of interpretation raised by this appeal. How does one set about deciding on thesematters?

15 The approach to interpretation must be one that would be acceptable to all the member states whohave to strive to identify a uniform meaning of the Decision. Craies rightly comments at para 32.5.1that one cannot simply apply the canons for construction or even the principles that apply tointerpreting domestic legislation. In the next paragraph Craies identifies the approach of the Court ofJustice to interpreting European legislation as involving the following stages, to be followedsequentially in so far as the meaning has not become clear. Start with the terms of the instrument inquestion, including its Preamble; Turn to preparatory documents; Consider the usual meaning ofexpressions used and [compare] different language texts of the instrument; Consider the purposeand general scheme of the instrument to be construed. While I shall consider these matters Ipropose to adopt a different order.

The natural meaning

16 As we are here concerned with the meaning of only two words, I propose at the outset to considerthe natural meaning of those words. It is necessary to do this in respect of both the English wordsjudicial authority and the equivalent words in the French text. Those words are autorit judiciaire.In the final version of the Framework Decision the same weight has to be applied to the English and

the French versions. It is, however, a fact that the French draft was prepared before the English andthat, in draft, in the event of conflict, the meaning of the English version had to give way to themeaning of the French. The critical phrase does not bear the same range of meanings in the Englishlanguage as in the French and, as I shall show, the different contexts in which the phrase is usedmore happily accommodate the French rather than the English meanings.

17 The first series of meanings of judicial given in theOxford English Dictionary is: Of or belongingto judgment in a court of law, or to a judge in relation to this function; pertaining to the administrationof justice; proper to a court of law or a legal tribunal; resulting from or fixed by a judgment in court. Inthe context of a judicial authority the more appropriate*1286 meanings are: having the function of judgment; invested with authority to judge causes; a public prosecutor would not happily fall withinthis meaning.

18 Judiciaire is capable of bearing a wide or a narrow meaning.Vocabulaire Juridique , 6th ed

(1996) states that it can be used (dans un sens vague). Qui appartient la justice, par opp legislative et administrative, or (dans un sens prcis). Qui concerne la justice rendue par lestribunaux judiciaires. A computer dictionary search discloses a number of examples of its use in thesens vague, for instance affaire judiciaire/legal case; aide judiciaire/legal aid; annonce judiciaire/legal notice; poursuite judiciaire/legal proceedings and last but not least, autorit judiciaire/legal authority.

19 Having regard to the range of meanings that autorit judiciaire is capable of embracing, it is nocause for surprise that the phrase often receives some additional definition. Examples of particularrelevance in the present context are found in the Rapport explicatif of the 1957 EuropeanConvention on Extradition (see para 26 below) and in the definition of autorit judiciaire inarticle 3of the first dra

assange v sweden case

Documents