Assange gets second chance in Supreme Court

Despite losing by a majority of five to two, his lawyers have been given 14 days to consider whether to challenge a central point of the judgment on the correct interpretation of international treaties. What a report in The Guardian describes as a highly unusual legal development came after the Supreme Court justices decided that a public prosecutor was a 'judicial authority' and that therefore Assange's arrest warrant had been lawfully issued. Assange, who is wanted in connection with accusations of sexual assault and rape in Sweden, denies the accusations. The obscure but potentially pivotal issue raised by Dinah Rose QC, Assange's barrister, relates to Article 31.3 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It states that treaties can be interpreted bearing in mind the 'subsequent practice' of their application. Assange's lawyers believe that several of the justices on the seven-judge panel relied on that principle of subsequent practice in deciding that a public prosecutor had become accepted across Europe as a judicial authority. Significantly, says the report, the court appears prepared to consider whether arguments about the Vienna Convention were raised sufficiently during the hearing. Full report in The Guardian