[Kt-viagra]

Ancient code used in Assange's last stand

For more than four hours in the British Supreme Court yesterday, there were references to complex European law and citations from 14th and 15th-century texts.

For more than four hours in the UK Supreme Court yesterday, there were references to complex European law, citations from 14th and 15th-century texts, and a quote from the Codex Iustinianus, dated 376 AD, all of which lawyers used in an effort save Julian Assange from extradition to Sweden, where he faces allegations of rape and sexual assault involving two women.

There were utterings in court in German, French and Latin as Assange's barrister, Dinah Rose, presented her case to six Lords and a Lady, all judges of the Court, that the arrest warrant under which Assange faces extradition is flawed.

The Court normally provides five judges for appeals, but decided on seven for the controversial Assange case "given the great public importance of the issue raised". They are expected to give a written verdict a few weeks after the hearing ends today.

This appeal is considered to be Assange's last stand against the extradition that has been upheld by one British court. If his appeal fails, he could get permission to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

But Ms Rose did everything she could yesterday to convince the judges that to send Assange to Sweden would be a great injustice.

Her delivery and responses to the Court were more polished and assured than those of Clare Montgomery, QC, who presented the Swedish case for only 30 minutes before the court was adjourned until today.

The Roman codex used by Rose to assist the Australian-born Assange, a one-time computer hacker and founder of WikiLeaks, says: "We decree by general law that no one ought to be his own judge or to administer justice in his own cause. For it is very unjust to give somebody permission to pass judgment in his own cause."

And that is the kernel of the defence that Ms Rose presented on behalf of Assange, who is fighting extradition on the basis that the European Arrest Warrant used by a Swedish prosecutor is invalid in law.

The prosecutor, Ms Rose told the Court, was not a "judicial authority" (a judge or someone with similar powers) within the meaning of the Extradition Act 2003 and therefore could not issue a valid warrant.

The prosecutor, she added, in her "adversarial relationship" with Assange, lacked the required impartiality and independence to be involved in issuing a warrant.

Ms Montgomery, who rejected Ms Rose's assertion that prosecutors could not be impartial in terms of issuing warrants because they were so involved in the cases, came under more intense questioning from the judges than Ms Rose. Full story @ the Age