WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange should be extradited from Britain to Sweden to face questioning over alleged sex crimes, London's High Court ruled today, after rejecting his appeal against the move.
Swedish authorities want to question the 40-year-old over accusations of rape and sexual assault made by two former female volunteers for his WikiLeaks organisation.
Two judges rejected claims that extraditing the Australian would be “unfair and unlawful”.
Mr Assange, whose WikiLeaks website published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments and international businesses, denies the allegations and says they are politically motivated.
Today the High Court upheld a ruling by Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court, south London, in February that the computer expert should be extradited to face investigation.
The judges ruled that the issuing of the European arrest warrant (EAW) that led to MrAssange’s arrest and all subsequent proceedings to achieve extradition were “proportionate”.
They dismissed Mr Assange’s argument that the warrant was invalid because it had been issued by a prosecutor, and not a “judicial authority”.
The judges held the action of the prosecutor was subject to the independent scrutiny of Swedish judges, “which, as judges of another (EU) member state, we must respect”.
The court also rejected Mr Assange’s assertion that the descriptions of the offences were not a fair and accurate description of the conduct alleged against him.
Today’s ruling was made by President of the Queen’s Bench Division Sir John Thomas, sitting with Mr Justice Ouseley.
The Assange legal challenge centres on a European arrest warrant (EAW) issued by a Swedish prosecutor which led to his arrest.
Speaking outside the court, Mr Assange condemned the EAW system. "I have not been charged with any crime in any country," said Mr Assange, who was dressed in a sharp, navy blue suit and wearing a Remembrance Day poppy. "The European arrest warrant (EAW) is so restrictive that it prevents UK courts from considering the facts of a case, as judges have made clear here today.
"We will be considering our next step in the days ahead," he added. "No doubt there will be many attempts made to try and spin these proceedings as they occur today but they are merely technical."
Mr Assange’s legal team now has to consider whether to apply to take the case to the Supreme Court on the grounds that it raises issues of general public importance.
Mr Assange burst into the public consciousness in April 2010 when WikiLeaks released Collateral Murder - video footage of a US air crew shooting Iraqi civilians in 2007.
The whistleblower website, which claimed a database of 1.2 million documents within a year of its 2006 launch, regularly hit the headlines in 2010 with a series of leaks. The US Embassy cables, Afghanistan war logs and Iraq war logs, which were drip-fed to the media in 2010, helped raise Mr Assange’s profile.
Upon his arrest in December 2010, he had a number of famous friends and supporters who helped him to raise bail of £200,000. These included film-maker Ken Loach and socialite and charity fundraiser Jemima Khan, who each offered £20,000.
Mr Assange always claimed that the allegations against him were politically motivated and linked to the activities of the whistleblower website. He recently revealed that the site is at risk of closure and is suspending its publishing operations to concentrate on fighting a financial blockade and raising new funds.
The stricken website is running on cash reserves after an “arbitrary and unlawful financial blockade” was imposed by Bank of America, Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and Western union last December, said Mr Assange.
PA