QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY
| Julian Assange
|Swedish Prosecution Authority
Ms Clare Montgomery QC, Mr A Watkins and Ms H Pye (instructed by CPS) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 12 and 13 July 2011
Crown Copyright ©
The President of the Queen's Bench Division:
This is the judgment of the court
"This warrant has been issued by a competent authority. I request the person mentioned below be arrested and surrendered for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order".
"1. Unlawful coercion
On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm. Assange, by using violence. forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2. Sexual molestation
On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3. Sexual molestation
On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."
No other description of the conduct was given elsewhere in the EAW.
i) The EAW had not been issued by a "judicial authority".
ii) Offences 1-3 described in the EAW (set out at paragraph 3 above) did not meet the dual criminality test. None was a fair and accurate description of the conduct alleged. As regards offence 4, the conduct, if fairly and accurately described, would not have amounted to the offence of rape.
iii) The condition in s.2(3) of the 2003 Act had not been satisfied as Mr Assange was not an "accused".
iv) The issue of the EAW and subsequent proceedings were not proportionate.
The first issue was argued as the last issue, but it is convenient to consider the issues in the order we have set them out.
Our general approach
(a) Construction of the 2003 Act
(b) The differences between the 2003 Act and the Framework Decision
(c) The purpose of the Framework Decision
"The objective set for the Union to become an area of freedom, security and justice leads to abolishing extradition between Member States and replacing it by a system of surrender between judicial authorities. Further, the introduction of a new simplified system of surrender of sentenced or suspected persons for the purposes of execution or prosecution of criminal sentences makes it possible to remove the complexity and potential for delay inherent in the present extradition procedures. Traditional cooperation relations which have prevailed up till now between Member States should be replaced by a system of free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters. covering both pre-sentence and final decisions, within an area of freedom, security and justice."
"Each national and judicial authority should ipso facto recognise requests for the surrender of a person made by the judicial authority of a Member State with a minimum of formalities." (Paragraph 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum)
(d) The approach required by mutual recognition
"It might in some circumstances be necessary to question statements made in the EAW by the foreign judge who issues it, even where the judge is duly authorised to issue such warrants in his category I territory, but ordinarily statements made by the foreign judge in the EAW, being a judicial decision, will be taken as accurately describing the procedures under the system of law he or she is appointed to administer."
Issue 1: Was the EAW issued by a judicial authority?
(a) The provisions of the Framework Decision and the 2001 Act
"Decisions on the execution of the European arrest warrant must be subject to sufficient controls, which means that a judicial authority of the Member State where the requested person has been arrested will have to take the decision on his or her surrender."
Articles 14 and 15 give effect to that recital by specifying the right to a hearing before a judicial authority before the decision to surrender is made.
"1. The issuing judicial authority shall be the judicial authority of the issuing Member State which is competent to issue a European Arrest warrant by virtue of the law of that state.
2. The executing judicial authority shall be the judicial authority of the executing Member State which is competent to execute a European Arrest warrant by virtue of the law of that state.
3. Each Member State shall inform the General Secretariat of the Council of the competent judicial authority under its law."
(s.2(7)-(8) of the 2003 Act). As we have set out at paragraph 4 it did so in this case.
(h) The decision of the Senior District Judge
(c) The contention of Mr Assange
(d) The meaning of judicial authority in the jurisprudence of the ECHR
"27. In providing that an arrested person shall be brought promptly before a "judge" or "other officer", Article 5 para. 3 leaves the Contracting States a choice between two categories of authorities. It is implicit in such a choice that these categories are not identical. However, the Convention mentions them in the same phrase and presupposes that these authorities fulfil similar functions; it thus clearly recognises the existence of a certain analogy between "judge" and "officer". Besides, were this not so. there would scarcely be any explanation for the inclusion of the adjective "other".
28. "Magistrat" in French and. even more. "officer" in English manifestly have a wider meaning than "juge" and "judge". Again, the exercise of "judicial power" is not necessarily confined to adjudicating on legal disputes. In many Contracting States, officers (magistrats) and even judges exercise such power without adjudicating, for example members of the prosecuting authorities and investigating judges. A literal analysis thus suggests that Article 5 para. 3 includes officials in public prosecutors' departments as well as judges sitting in court (les magistrats du parquet comme ceux du siege)."
"To sum up, the "officer" is not identical with the "judge" but must nevertheless have some of the latter's attributes, that is to say he must satisfy certain conditions each of which constitutes a guarantee for the person arrested. The first of such conditions is independence of the executive and of the parties (see, mutatis mutandis. the above-mentioned Neumeister judgment, p. 44).
This does not mean that the "officer" may not be to some extent subordinate to other judges or officers provided that they themselves enjoy similar independence. In addition, under Article 5 para. 3, there is both a procedural and a substantive requirement. The procedural requirement places the "officer" under the obligation of hearing himself the individual brought before him (see, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned Winterwerp judgment, p. 24, para. 60); the substantive requirement imposes on him the obligations of reviewing the circumstances militating for or against detention, of deciding, by reference to legal criteria, whether there are reasons to justify detention and of ordering release if there are no such reasons (Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment, p. 76, para. 199)."
As the District Attorney was acting in that case as an investigating authority with power to charge and detain and subsequently to gather the evidence both in favour of the accused and against him. and not as a prosecutor, he was "an officer authorised to exercise judicial power".
(e) The meaning of judicial authority in the 2001 Act and the Framework Decision
"The term "judicial authority" corresponds. as in the J957 Convention (cf Explanatory Report, Article I) to the judicial authorities as such and the prosecution services, but not to the authorities of police force. The issuing judicial authority will be the judicial authority which has the authority to issue the European arrest warrant in the procedural system of the Member State."
Article 1 of the 1957 Convention provided for the extradition of all persons "against whom the competent authorities of the requesting Party are proceeding for an offence". The Explanatory Report on that Convention stated in respect of that Article:
"The term competent authorities in the English text corresponds to autorites judiciaries in the French text. These expressions cover the judiciary and the Office of the Public Prosecutor, but exclude the police authorities:'
In any event,
"Further material supplied from the Netherlands gives information about the position of the public prosecutor in his relations with inter alios the police and the Minister of Justice. It is not necessary here to refer t o this in detail. Suffice it to say that it shows that he performs a function as part of the judiciary in that country. He is not part of the executive."
(f) The status of the designation of judicial authority by another Member State
(f) Circumstances giving rise to more intense scrutiny: The effect of the decision of the Svea Court of Appeal
Issue 2: Dual Criminality; the fairness and accuracy of the description of the conduct alleged
(a) The contention of Mr Assange
i) Offence 1: Although it was accepted that the conduct as described would constitute an offence in England and Wales, a fair and accurate description of the prosecution case would not meet that test.
ii) Offence 2: This did not meet the dual criminality test on the basis either of the description of the offence set out in the EAW or of a fair and accurate description of the offence.
iii) Offence 3: The position was the same as offence 1.
(h) Can the court have regard to extraneous material to determine the accuracy of the description of the conduct?
"… it is very important that a state requesting extradition from the U K fairly and properly describes the conduct alleged, as the accuracy and fairness of the description plays such an important role in the decisions that have to be made by the Secretary of State and the court in the UK. Scrutiny of the description of the conduct alleged to constitute the offence alleged, where as here a question is raised about its accuracy is not an enquiry into evidential sufficiency; the court is not concerned to assess the quality or sufficiency of the evidence in support of the conduct alleged but, it is concerned, if materials are put before it which call into question the accuracy and fairness of the description, to see if the description of the conduct alleged is fair and accurate.
On the facts of that particular case an examination of the dossier showed that the description of the conduct alleged was not a proper, accurate or fair description.
"The court's task --jurisdiction, if you like --is to determine whether the particulars required by section 2(4) have been properly given. It is a task to be undertaken with firm regard to mutual co-operation, recognition and respect. It does not extend to a debatable analysis of arguably discrepant evidence, nor to a detailed critique of the law of the requesting state as given by the issuing judicial authority. It may, however, occasionally be necessary to ask, on appropriately clear facts, whether the description of the conduct alleged to constitute the alleged extradition offence is fair, proper and accurate. I understood Ms Cumberland [counsel for the Spanish judicial authority] to accept this, agreeing that it was in the end a matter of fact and degree. She stressed, however, a variety of floodgates arguments with which in general I agree, that this kind of inquiry should not be entertained in any case where to do so would undermine the principles to be found in the introductory preambles to the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002."
On the facts of that case, the extraneous material was examined and the court held that the EAW was not a valid EAW as there was not a proper, accurate and fair description of the conduct.
(d) Offence 1: Dual criminality: consideration of the accuracy and fairness by reference to extraneous material
i) The description in the EAW sets out a clear description of the conduct that the Prosecutor alleges against Mr Assange. It is for the Prosecutor not the court to set out what is alleged.
ii) The Svea Court of Appeal has considered the offences and determined that there is cause to proceed.
iii) It cannot be said that what is set out is plainly wrong.
iv) No allegation of bad faith on the part of the Prosecutor was made in this court.
v) The facts set out were sufficient to lead to the inevitable inference of lack of consent to the specific matter alleged against Mr Assange and to the requisite knowledge on his part. In the case of the first offence, Mr Assange lay on AA forcibly restricting her movements to which she did not consent. That is what would have to be proved. If he did those acts it would also be the inevitable inference, to the extent relevant, that he knew that she was not consenting.
(e) Offence 2: Dual criminality
(i) The offence as set out in the EAW: consent and the use of a condom under the law of England and Wales
(1) The issue
(2) The law prior to the Sexual Offences Act 20031
"The person by whom the act was to be performed was part of its essence."
The law thus established was applied in 1994 in R v Linekar  QB 250 in a case where the Court of Appeal quashed a rape conviction of a man who had never intended to pay a prostitute with whom he had had sexual intercourse after she had agreed to sexual intercourse for £25. She had consented to sexual intercourse. It mattered not that the consent had been conditional, as there had been no fraud as to the nature of the act or identity of the person.
(3) The Sexual Offences Act 2003
"F or the purposes of this part, a person consents if he agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice."
In our view it is this section that is the relevant section but, before considering it, it is convenient to set out the argument made by Mr Assange in more detail.
(4) The contention of Mr Assange
(1) If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved that the defendant did the relevant act and that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, it is to be conclusively presumed
(a) that the complainant did not consent to the relevant act, and
(b) that the defendant did not believe that the complainant consented to the relevant act.
(2)The circumstances are that-
(a) the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act;
(b) the defendant intentionally induced the complainant to consent to the relevant act by impersonating a person known personally to the complainant.
S.77 defines "the relevant act" for the offence of rape as the defendant intentionally penetrating, with his penis, the vagina of another person and for the offence of sexual assault the intentional touching.
"Where one party to sexual activity has a sexually transmissible disease which is not disclosed to the other party any consent that may have been given to that activity by the other party is not thereby vitiated. The act remains a consensual act. However, the party suffering from the sexual transmissible disease will not have any defence to any charge which may result from harm created by that sexual activity, merely by virtue of that consent, because such consent did not include consent to infection by the disease."
The court went on to hold that the fact that the defendant had not disclosed that he was HIV infected was not in any way relevant to the issue of consent to sexual intercourse under s.74.
(5) Our conclusion
"In our judgment the ambit of section 76 is limited to the "act" to which it is said to apply. In rape cases the "act" is vaginal, anal or oral intercourse. Provided this consideration is constantly borne in mind, it will be seen that section 76 (2)(a) is relevant only to the comparatively rare cases where the defendant deliberately deceives the complainant about the nature or purpose of one or other form of intercourse. No conclusive presumptions arise merely because the complainant was deceived in some way or other by disingenuous blandishments or common or garden lies by the defendant. These may well be deceptive and persuasive, but they will rarely go to the nature or purpose of intercourse. Beyond this limited type of case, and assuming that, as here, section 75 has no application, the issue of consent must be addressed in the context of section 74."
"All we need to say is that, as a matter of law, the fact that the defendant may not have disclosed his HIV status is not a matter which could in any way be relevant to the issue of consent under section 74 in relation to the sexual activity in this case."
(ii) Consideration of the accuracy and fairness by reference to extraneous material
(e) Offence 3: Dual criminality: consideration of the accuracy and fairness by reference to extraneous material
(f) Offence 4: A framework offence: fairness and accuracy of the description of/he conduct
"The following offences,. if they are punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or detention order for a maximum period of at least three years and as they are defined by the law of the issuing Member State, shall, under the terms of this Framework Decision and without verification of the double criminality of the act, give rise to surrender pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant."
(i) The meaning of rape
"159. In most European countries influenced by the continental legal tradition the definition of rape contains references to the use of violence or threats of violence by the perpetrator. It is significant, however, that in case law and legal theory, lack of consent, not force is seen as the constituent element of rape.
161. Regardless of the specific wording chosen by the legislature, in a number of countries the prosecution of non consensual sexual acts in all circumstances is sought in practice by means of interpretation of the relevant statutory terms and through a context sensitive assessment of the evidence."
The court went on to refer to the Recommendation Rec (2002) 5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the protection of women against violence and the position in international law. It referred to Prosecutor v Kunarac (2002) IT 96-23/1, where the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia approved the definition of rape formulated by the Tribunal after a review of international jurisprudence. The definition given was that rape was constituted by intentional penetration without consent with knowledge that it was without consent (see paragraph 128). The Strasbourg Court concluded that the trend was towards "regarding lack of consent as the essential element of rape." This is confirmed by a more recent study: "Different systems, similar outcomes? Tackling attrition in reported rape cases across Europe" by Lovett and Kelly published by the Child and Women Abuse Studies Unit of London Metropolitan University in 2009. The definitions set out show a wide variation with coercion being required in some states and lack of consent in others.
(ii) The effect of designation by the issuing judicial authority
"If applicable, tick one or more of the following offences punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or detention order of a maximum of at least 3 years as defined by the laws of the issuing Member State."
The provisions of the Framework Decision appear to be reflected in s.64(2)(b) of the 2003 Act which provides as one of the conditions for extradition for a Framework Offence:
"A certificate issued by an appropriate authority ... shows that the conduct falls within the European framework list."
(iii) The designation ofthe conduct under the law of England and Wales
(1) If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved
(a) that the defendant did the relevant act,
(b) that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, and
(c) that the defendant knew that those circumstances existed,
the complainant is to be taken not to have consented to the relevant act unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he consented, and the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it.
(2)The circumstances are that-i
(d) the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act;
(iv) The fairness and accuracy of the description
Issue 3: Was Mr Assange accused of an offence in Sweden?
(a) The provisions of the 2003 Act
"A Part 1 warrant is an arrest warrant ... which contains (a) the statement referred to in subsection (3)"
That sub-section then provides:
"The statement is one that
(a) the person in respect of whom the Part 1 warrant is issued is accused in the Category 1 territory of the commission of an offence specified in the warrant, and
(b) the Part 1 warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence."
This reflects in part Article 1.1 of the Framework Decision which specifies that extradition is for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution.
(ii) The finding of the Senior District Judge
(iii) The issue: .vas Mr Assange "accused"
(iv) The meaning of "accused"
"It is common ground that mere suspicion that an individual has committed offences is insufficient to place him in the category of "accused" persons. It is also common ground that it is not enough that he is in the traditional phrase "wanted by the police to help them with their inquiries." Something more is required. What more is needed to make a suspect an "accused" person? There is no statutory definition. Given the divergent systems of law involved, and notably the differences between criminal procedures in the United Kingdom and in civil law jurisdictions, it is not surprising that the legislature has not attempted a definition. For the same reason it would be unwise for the House to attempt to define the word "accused" within the meaning of the Act of 1989. It is, however, possible to state in outline the approach to be adopted. The starting point is that "accused" in s.1 of the Act of 1989 is not a term of art. It is a question of fact in each case whether the person passes the threshold test of being an "accused" person. Next there is the reality that one is concerned with the contextual meaning of "accused" in a statute intended to serve the purpose of bringing to justice those accused of serious crimes. There is a transnational interest in the achievement of this aim. Extradition treaties, and extradition statutes, ought, therefore, to be accorded a broad and generous construction so far as the texts permits it in order to facilitate extradition ... It follows that it would be wrong to approach the problem of construction solely from the perspective of English criminal procedure, and in particular from the point of view of the formal acts of the laying of an information or the preferring an indictment. Moreover, it is important to note that in England a prosecution may also be commenced if a custody officer decides that there is sufficient evidence to charge an arrested person and then proceeds to charge him... Despite the fact that the prosecuting authorities and the court are not involved at that stage, the charging of an arrested person marks the beginning of a prosecution and the suspect becomes an "accused" person. And that is so even if the police continue to investigate afterwards."
He continued at page 327:
"It is not always easy for an English court to decide when in a civil law jurisdiction a suspect becomes an "accused" person. All one can say with confidence is that a purposive interpretation of "accused" ought to be adopted in order to accommodate the differences between legal systems. In other words, it is necessary for our courts to adopt a cosmopolitan approach to the question whether as a matter of substance rather than form the requirement of there being an "accused" person is satisfied. That such a broad approach to the interpretation of section 1 of the Act of 1989 is permissible is reinforced by the provisions of section 20. This provision deals with the reverse position of an extradition of a person "accused" in the United Kingdom and contemplates that "proceedings" against him may not be commenced ("begun") for six months after his return. This provides contextual support for a correspondingly broad approach to "accused" in section 1. For my part I am satisfied that the Divisional Court in this case posed the right test by addressing the broad question whether the competent authorities in the foreign jurisdiction had taken a step which can fairly be described as the commencement of a prosecution. But in the light of the diversity of cases which may come before the courts it is right to emphasise that ultimately the question whether a person is "accused" within the meaning of section 1 of the Act of 1989 will require an intense focus on the particular facts of each case." (The passage in italics is the passage particularly relied upon by Mr Assange.)
"If [a person] is wanted for prosecution, and the warrant later describes the offence and sets out its circumstances and gives the statutory provision which he is alleged to have infringed, it is very difficult to see how he can be described other than as an "accused" even if there is no statement using that word. The subject of such a European arrest warrant is clearly more than a suspect or someone who is wanted for questioning."
The court should, in our view, be very careful in the context of the 2003 Act and the Framework Decision about giving to the word "accused" some technical procedural meaning which would amount to a hurdle which other Member States cannot match in their own procedures.
(v) The terms of the EAW
"A warrant which does not contain the statements referred to in [s.2(2)] cannot be eked out by extraneous information. The requirements of s.2(2) are mandatory. If they are not met, the warrant is not a Part 1 warrant and the remaining provisions of that Part of the Act will not apply to it."
It follows that the Prosecutor must not have had its attention drawn to the further observations of Lord Hope in Cando Armas at paragraph 48:
"The fact that Part 1 of the 2003 Act does not match the requirements of the Framework Directive is confusing to the unwary, and it appears likely that it will be a source of continuing difficulty. Steps should be taken to remind the authorities in the category 1 territories that the statements referred to in section 2(2) of the Act are a necessary part of the procedure that has been laid down in Part 1 of the Act."
"The investigation must have reached the stage at which the requesting judicial authority is satisfied that he faces a case such that he ought to be tried for the specified offence or offences, and the purpose of the request for extradition must be to place him on trial." (paragraph 50)
In our view, the terms of the EAW read as a whole made clear that not only was the EAW issued for the purpose of Mr Assange being prosecuted for the offence, but that he was required for the purposes of being tried after being identified as the perpetrator of specific criminal offences. He was therefore accused of the offences specified in the EAW. Nothing in the EAW suggested he was wanted for questioning as a suspect.
(vi) The circumstances in which the extraneous evidence was adduced
"6. A domestic warrant for [Julian Assange's] arrest was upheld [on] 24 November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.
7. According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation". It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.
8. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime. provide underlying material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all evidence can be presented at trial. Once a decision to indict has been made, an indictment is filed with the court. In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence within 2 weeks. Once started, the trial may not be adjourned. It can, therefore be seen that the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings. There is no easy analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure. I issued the EAW because I was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences.
9. It is submitted on Julian Assange's behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. This is not an appropriate course in Assange's case. The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him.
10. Once the interrogation is complete. it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists. Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."
(vii) The contention of Mr Assange on the extraneous evidence
i) The Senior District Judge, who had heard evidence of Swedish law, had found on the evidence before him that the proceedings were at the preliminary investigation stage; that the preliminary investigation did not come to an end until the evidence was served on Mr Assange or his lawyer and there had been an interrogation of him with the opportunity for further enquiries. Thereafter there would be a decision to charge; if charged, it was likely that the trial would take place shortly thereafter.
ii) There were numerous statements by Ms Ny that the proceedings were still at the investigative stage. She had said on 19 November 2010; "We have come to a point in the investigation where we cannot go further without speaking to Julian Assange." She had written to the Australian Ambassador in December 2010 making it clear that she was engaged in an "on going investigation". In a conversation with the Ambassador on 16 December 2010, she had confirmed that no decision had been made to prosecute Mr Assange. It was only when such a decision was made that Mr Assange would be granted access to all the documents in the case.
iii) In the Prosecutor's submission to the Svea Court of Appeal when it was considering the appeal of Mr Assange against the decision to issue a warrant for his arrest (to which we have referred at paragraph 51 above), the Prosecutor had stated that the reason for the arrest of Mr Assange was "in order to enable implementation of the preliminary investigation and possible prosecution". In rejecting the appeal the Court had stated in its reasons that Mr Assange was "suspected with probable cause of' the four offences to which we referred at paragraph 3.
iv) The translation of the EAW was wrong; the word translated as "criminal prosecution" was in Swedish "for lagforing". This was a general term relating to the entire process; it meant "legal proceedings". There were more precise words that should have been used such as åtala or åklaga which meant prosecute or indict.
(viii) Can extraneous evidence be examined!
(ix) Conclusion on the extraneous evidence
Issue 4: Proportionality