Assange has lost his appeal. This is justice perverted.
Is a judicial authority a person in black robes (a judge) or a person in a black suit (a prosecutor)? The Supreme Court (UK) ruled that a black suit will do.
Google on judicial authority. First entry from a legal dictionary is an explanation of judicial review, which courts have asserted. Down a ways is answers.com, and it’s all about courts, saying at the outset “Official assembly with judicial authority to hear and determine disputes in particular cases.”
It is true that a prosecutor is an officer of the court, but so are all who are involved—including defense attorneys. This doesn’t vest them with court authority.
EAW = European Arrest Warrant. The Swedish respondent that wanted Assange held for trial in Sweden argued that:
“the term ‘judicial authority’ has a wide and autonomous meaning. The term is used in Part 1 of the 2003 Act to give effect to the EAW Framework Decision that, on proper analysis, permits an EAW to be issued by individuals or bodies (including a public prosecutor) recognised within an EU country as exercising authority in its domestic judicial system and having the function of issuing EAWs…”
This is their logic: An arrest warrant must be issued by a proper authority. A prosecutor has proper authority within his domestic judicial system. Therefore, a prosecutor has judicial authority. This is flawed reasoning. Having authority and being part of a judicial process doesn’t turn one into a judicial authority. If this is true, then police are judicial authorities.
I’d like to point out that prosecutors argue before a court. They are obviously not members of a court. The term “judicial” means of or belonging to a court of justice. The courts do not appoint prosecutors or employ them. The States do, and they are elected. The judiciary of England doesn’t include prosecutors.
ADDED THOUGHT. The European council mistakenly used the term “judicial authority” in its rules for issuing European Arrest Warrants. The Assange defense attempted to prevent his extradition on this issue. The Supreme Court preferred to extradite Assange rather than to tell the council that it made a mistake and should revise its language accordingly. The Court wanted to extinguish the threat to the State that is Julian Assange. It was willing to overlook legislative imprecision and twist meaning out of shape. The separation and independence of a State’s judiciary from the other branches of government breaks down here and becomes fiction.
