Yes constitutional principles do matter. And the constitution in the spotlight is Sweden's? If the warrant in question is legal according to the Swedish constitution; then Britain as a member of the EU is duty bound to recognise a legal warrant issued by a fellow member. The warrant merely asks for extradition, so that Assange can answer to Swedish courts for crimes allegedly committed in Sweden?
If Assange is simply concerned about extradition to America to answer for complicity in other crimes; then it is arguably easier for the American authorities to extradite him directly from Britain.
We have a saying, do the crime then do the time. Assange may believe that certain laws do not apply to him and seemed every ready to shine an inquisitorial light on all others?
However, when the same light shone on him and exposed things he would have preferred to keep out of the public domain, he was clearly outraged. I'm sorry I don't buy his particular argument or the fact that he objects to not being able to further traumatise the alleged victims?
If he has no case to answer as he strenuously claims; then why is he alleging all sorts of conspiracy concerns simply to avoid his day in a Swedish court? Surely a truly innocent man would have been only to willing to have his day in court? Instead of resorting to the full sum of legalistic technical delays? Rhrosty.

Rhrosty appears to be confused on many points.

The lead article was phrased in impenetrable language, so it is not surprising that Rhrosty failed to grasp its meaning.
1. British courts are established under British law, not Swedish.
2. The author explained that the critical issue is not whether the Swedish arrest warrants complied with Swedish law, but whether the person who signed the warrant was qualified to do so. Having established that the body which issued the warrant is not judicial, he explains why he is surprised that the High Court, having argued that this is a requirement of a valid warrant, subsequently issued a decision which was contrary to its own reasoning. This isn't Swedish law - it is British, although based in part on the Framework Decision.
3. "...it would not … be a valid EAW under the Framework Decision."
4. Thus, the arrest warrant was invalid.

All other conjecture and prejudice provided by Rhrosty are irrelevant - Assange has not been found guilty of anything yet, so statements such as:
"Assange may believe that certain laws do not apply to him..." and
"...he objects to not being able to further traumatise the alleged victims"
serve only to display overwhelming prejudice on the part of Rhosty against Assange who, it must be remembered, is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

It's a shame I think that the article doesn't link to the judgement itself.

I should like to see a follow up article, which more closely examines the extradition processes across the EU, with perhaps accompanying analysis on what exactly is the common framework, if indeed there is one?

If I do not misunderstand, essentially the courts ruling has determined that the uk will now potentially accept extradition requests regardless of the fact that they may come from an EU authority which is not necessarily a court.

This I presume will have far reaching consequences.

Additionally, I am wondering, was that the final recourse to appeal in the jurisdiction in question or is there say a point of law or other appeals process available?

Law has little to do with justice and the survival of our species.Law is about a few elites stealing as much as they can without being held accountable.

John Bennetts: I agree with your observations. I would just add that Mr Assange has not been charged with a crime, much less convicted. The available information casts serious doubts on the veracity of the two alleged complainants in this matter. There are certainly questions also about whether the attempt to extradite Mr Assange is a political or a legal one. Even what is alleged against him would probably not amount to a crime in either Australia or the UK.

DreamOn: I believe that Mr Assange still has recourse to the European Court of Human Rights in the event that the Supreme Court turns down his appeal.

Assange jammed the Yanks. Now they're jamming him. End of story.

The problem is that the British do not understand Constitutional Law in the sense understood in the US and Australia. They have not institutionalised the separation of powers. Eg. their highest court - the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords - is an offshoot of a legislative chamber.

So logically though the following passage is to Americans and Australians it is not seen as such in the UK. Let's hope they may grasp the point before it is too late for Julian and others in the future.

The quote:

The Court explained that constitutional principles supporting basic rights were so important that they must be upheld even if Member States chose to ignore them; accordingly, while it was a matter for each State to designate its own warrant issuing authority, this would not apply 'if the authority were self-evidently not a judicial authority'; thus,

… if a warrant was issued by a Ministry of Justice which the Member State had designated as an authority … it would not … be a valid EAW under the Framework Decision … it would self-evidently not have been issued by a body which, on principles universally accepted in Europe, was judicial.

Surprisingly, after this promising start the Court ignored these principles".

INDEED IT IS SURPRISING!

Posted by Andrew Farran, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 4:41:59 PM

" ... Eg. their highest court - the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords - is an offshoot of a legislative chamber. ... "

And is this body still populated by hereditary parasites?

..

Thereafter, I believe that the poms retain a "make it up as you go along" constitution and are also responsible in part for the "Australia Act" which in part altered our Australian Constitution without a referendum and the consent of the people by doing away with appeals to the Head of State in council.

I note though, from memory, a quote from one of the High Court judges who pointed out that the aforementioned provision nonetheless remains in the Australian Constitution, which may make the relevant offending provision in the Australia Act challengable on the grounds that it is not constitutional.

I suspect the answer to the author's question 'do constitutional principles [in the case of Julian Assange] matter?', is that WHERE IT MATTERS, among the UK populace and the Australian populace, they are definitely thought to do so by elements within the US government interested in over-riding constitutions.

Various of the Wikileaked cables are capable of being read, in the light of hindsight, as indicative of the whole Swedish imbroglio involving Assange (including the alleged sexual offences/complaints themselves) having been orchestrated by the US government for the express purpose of its being able to entrap Assange in Swedish jurisdiction and then invoke the 'temporary surrender' provisions of its extradition agreement with Sweden.

Without the Swedish imbroglio, the US would seemingly have been faced with seeking the extradition of Assange direct from the UK, where he seems to have been based at the time. (Perhaps Assange was travelling on a British passport: many who are Australian by birth are potentially entitled to hold a British passport. It would be interesting to know upon which passport, Australian or British, he was travelling, especially as he was seemingly able to have given the slip to an initial attempt to entrap him in Sweden. Did US agencies flag the wrong passport for surveillance, perhaps?)

Straightaway the US government would have run into the problem that, whilst under the terms of the UK Extradition Act of 2003 Assange, if he was to have been British, may not have needed to have committed any crime in the UK to be subject to extradition, Assange is an Australian citizen. As an Australian citizen having committed no crime within the UK (nor within Australia, as has been acknowledged) Assange would appear to have been beyond the reach of the very one-sided UK Extradition Act's provisions.

It would thus seem, that at the time by which it had decided it wished to move on taking Assange into its custody in 2010, the US government would, without Sweden, have had to deal direct with the Australian government so far as any extradition matters were concerned.