Julian Assange arrest warrant ruling 2
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 February 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Criminal |
| Court | Magistrates' Court |
1
IN THE WESTMINSTER MAGISTRATES’ COURT
AN APPLICATION BY JULIAN ASSANGE
RULING OF THE SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE (THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE)
EMMA ARBUTHNOT
RULING NO. 2
13TH FEBRUARY 2018
Introduction
1. On 6th February 2018 I gave a ruling that the arrest warrant issued under section 7 of
the Bail Act 1976 (“the Act”) was valid even though the underlying extradition
proceedings had been discharged and no section 6 Bail Act prosecution for breach of
bail had been initiated. By agreement it was decided that the public interest
arguments would be considered at a later stage.
Issue
2. This application is made by Mark Summers QC instructed by Birnberg Pierce that I
consider whether it is in the public interest that proceedings against Julian Assange
should be initiated under section 6 of the Act.
3. He contends that the court should now find that any proceedings for failing to
surrender are disproportionate and not in the public interest and that in the
circumstances the section 7 Bail Act warrant should be withdrawn.
Hearing on 6th February 2018 - preliminary issues
4. The first question raised by Mr Summers was whether in principle I could hear
argument in relation to proportionality and public interest in the absence of Mr
Assange. Mr Watkins for the extradition unit of the Crown Prosecution Service
argued I should not. There were no authorities directly on the point and nothing in the
Criminal Procedure Rules or in Practice Directions which give guidance either way. I
decided I should consider the arguments relied upon by Mr Assange at this stage. I
warned Mr Summers that I might decide that the best time to consider whether or not
a section 6 charge should be put to Mr Assange would be when he attended court.
5. Mr Watkins had attended to make observations on behalf of the extradition unit of the
Crown Prosecution Service. Mr Summers argued that Mr Watkins’ role had come to
an end and that I should not hear submissions from him as he was not instructed by
the criminal unit of the Crown Prosecution Service. I agreed with Mr Summers that
the extradition unit of the Crown Prosecution Service had no role to play at this stage
of the proceedings although I did ask Mr Watkins to confirm various details relied on
by Mr Summers.
To continue reading
Request your trial