(London, U.K.) WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was granted permission to take his extradition case against the United States to the Supreme Court, a court ruled on Monday.
In a short hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, also known as the High Court, Lord Chief Justice Ian Duncan Burnett refused to grant Assange leave to appeal — respecting the custom of allowing the Supreme Court to decide for itself which cases it hears — but did pave the way for the case to proceed to Britain’s highest court after “certifying” a point of law.
Lord Chief Justice Burnett, Britain’s most senior judge, rejected two grounds on which Assange’s defence sought certification, but accepted that the issue of diplomatic assurances provided by the United States at a late stage of the hearing was of sufficient public importance for the upper-most court to consider.
In a written pronouncement explaining the finding, Burnett said: “The Respondent [Assange] sought certification in respect of three points of law, the first of which centred on the circumstances in which an appellate court may receive assurances from a requesting state concerning the future treatment of a requested person if extradited.
“We do not consider that the second or third points raise certifiable points. So far as the first is concerned, although the law in this jurisdiction has long been settled it does not appear that the Supreme Court has considered the question. Assurances are at the heart of many extradition proceedings.”
Following the finding, Assange lawyers Birnberg Peirce Solicitors issued a statement in which they welcome the decision.
“The High Court found against Mr Assange in its ruling, and relied upon the late assurances, but has certified a point of law of general public importance on the question of the courts’ reception of assurances (frequently relied upon by requesting states in extradition proceedings to overcome defence evidence after it has established a bar to extradition) for the first time on appeal.
“The identification by the High Court of the question above for the potential consideration of the Supreme Court, involves concepts of procedural fairness and natural justice. There has long been a general approach by the courts that requires that all relevant matters are raised before the District Judge appointed to consider the case in the Magistrates’ Court.
“What has underpinned a departure from those principles in practice is the categorisation of an assurance as an ‘issue’ as opposed to ‘evidence’ and the developing practice, potentially now consolidated in the decision in this case, whereby an assurance can be freely introduced by the requesting state and considered separately and later.
“The defence argument is that despite being as demanding of close evidential scrutiny as the evidence already heard, and despite the content of the assurances being applicable to the testimony of witnesses already heard but not heard again, assurances has been afforded a different procedural position. This issue has become of considerable importance in the predictability and progression of extradition cases.
“It is therefore welcome both for Mr Assange’s case and generally that the Supreme Court might now have the opportunity of considering how and when and in what circumstances assurances may be received in extradition proceedings in the U.K.”
Assange’s lawyers now have 14 days to submit their application for appeal to the Supreme Court.
The case continues.