... The attack is threefold. Firstly Ms Ny is not eligible to issue the EAW. Secondly she is not a judicial authority. Thirdly the warrant is not issued
for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence as required by subsections 2 and 3. The argument is set out in the skeleton argument prepared by counsel for the defendant on 4th February 2011, and is further developed in the skeleton dated 7th February 2011 ...
City of Westminster Magistrates Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons
... The offences of which he is accused and in respect of which his surrender is sought are alleged to have been committed in Stockholm against two women in August 2010. They include sexual molestation and, in one case, rape. At the extradition hearing before the Senior District 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) in Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) requires an EAW to be issued by a judicial authority. Mr Assange contends that the Prosecutor does not fall within the meaning of that phrase and that, accordingly, the EAW is invalid. This point of law is of general importance, for in the case of quite a number of Member States EAWs are issued by public prosecutors. Its resolution does not turn on the facts of Mr Assanges case ...
The Supreme Court
Easter Term
<2012> UKSC 22
On appeal from: <2011> EWHC Admin 2849
JUDGMENT
Assange (Appellant) v The Swedish Prosecution Authority (Respondent)