I'm afraid British law showed what it was made of in the Assange appeal to the UK Supreme court. Archived Message
Posted by CJ on June 18, 2019, 2:46 am, in reply to "US DoJ on Friday says it needs to coerce Manning into testifying because her testimony is ..."
So many criticised the appeal decision as it was based on a reading of UK law using the French wording of the European framework decision which was the basis of the UK Act - I believe every commentator expressed dissatisfaction with this given that UK Parliamentarians had not considered the French translation when passing legislation and had made their opinion clear - a judicial authority was required to issue an EAW. And of course the Act was amended to ensure this interpretation never appears again. I am still unclear as to why JA could have been refused an appeal to the European court of human rights and how this was blocked by the Swedes as JA has said. cheers
|
Message Thread:
- UK's Crown Prosecution Service anti-Assange bias - Poster123 June 17, 2019, 9:54 pm
- Re: UK's Crown Prosecution Service anti-Assange bias - margo June 17, 2019, 10:16 pm
- Ecuador to allow US investigators to question Assange's friend, now detained in that country - margo June 17, 2019, 11:18 pm
- Chelsea Manning now being financially ruined as well - margo June 18, 2019, 12:30 am
- Co-operation and collusion between US and UK: fast-track extradition? Dangerous turn (video) - margo June 18, 2019, 12:44 am
- Tweets now written up in an article - Poster123 June 18, 2019, 10:48 am
|
|