5 ms·

It would require a judgment from the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court to be able to use this to challenge any future extradition requests from the US. This

It would require a judgment from the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court to be able to use this to challenge any future extradition requests from the US. This is because binding precedent is only set by the appellate courts and while this judgment is persuasive, other judges sitting in this court can ignore it since they're not bound to follow it.

sneak 6y ago
This is precisely the thing I wanted to know. Thank you!
- input_sh 6y ago
  FYI this isn't the first time a similar extradition to the US has been denied by the UK. Lauri Love (allegedly affiliated with Anonymous) successfully fought against extradition in 2016. Court originally ruled that extradition can happen, but the appeals court ruled differently, citing that extradition would be "oppressive by reason of his physical and mental condition". As far as I'm aware the case never made it to the Supreme Court.
heraclius 6y ago
A High Court judgment would also bind lower courts, including the Magistrates’ Court.
lawtalkinghuman 6y ago
Deciding whether under s91 of the Extradition Act, "the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him", is a very fact-specific issue rather than a legal question though. The appellate courts are generally there to resolve legal questions not factual ones—I'd question the Assange case, or other similar cases would raise a similar legal rather than factual question. There has been a trend towards applying s91 cases for defendants with autism spectrum disorders: the courts didn't in Gary McKinnon's case, but the Home Secretary (Theresa May, before she became PM) justified her denial of the extradition order on that basis. In Lauri Love's case, the magistrates' court allowed the extradition order but it was overturned on appeal in the High Court on the basis of Love's not being able to cope in US custody with Asperger's syndrome. In the Assange case, the magistrates' court followed this established and rather persuasive precedent.

sneak 6y ago

This is precisely the thing I wanted to know. Thank you!

input_sh 6y ago
FYI this isn't the first time a similar extradition to the US has been denied by the UK. Lauri Love (allegedly affiliated with Anonymous) successfully fought against extradition in 2016. Court originally ruled that extradition can happen, but the appeals court ruled differently, citing that extradition would be "oppressive by reason of his physical and mental condition". As far as I'm aware the case never made it to the Supreme Court.

heraclius 6y ago

A High Court judgment would also bind lower courts, including the Magistrates’ Court.

lawtalkinghuman 6y ago

Deciding whether under s91 of the Extradition Act, "the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him", is a very fact-specific issue rather than a legal question though. The appellate courts are generally there to resolve legal questions not factual ones—I'd question the Assange case, or other similar cases would raise a similar legal rather than factual question. There has been a trend towards applying s91 cases for defendants with autism spectrum disorders: the courts didn't in Gary McKinnon's case, but the Home Secretary (Theresa May, before she became PM) justified her denial of the extradition order on that basis. In Lauri Love's case, the magistrates' court allowed the extradition order but it was overturned on appeal in the High Court on the basis of Love's not being able to cope in US custody with Asperger's syndrome. In the Assange case, the magistrates' court followed this established and rather persuasive precedent.