No, the amend was in response to Symeou case. And Assange would not meet s21B conditions, as refused q’s.
Yes, only 'the one' where the Supreme Court says they got it wrong in Assange. Go back to law school.
-
-
Oddly, i can't find anywhere in Bucnys where they say Assange wrong. Repeared confirmation that>
@nearlylegal@DrJillStein -
(repeated)>per Assange, prosecutors were to judicial authorities under Framework Agreement...
-
>and no suggestion Assange wrong on that.
@nearlylegal@DrJillStein -
SC erroneously applied VCLT to interpret 'judicial authority' in FD on EAWs.This point decided the case.
-
No. It was one of 5 reasons in the leading judgment. Mance (who delivered the Bucnys judgment)>
@nearlylegal@DrJillStein -
>dissented in Assange; but even in Bucnys he does not say that Assange wrongly decided.
@nearlylegal@DrJillStein -
This argument alone persuaded the 3 otherwise undecided SC judges. There were 7. 2 dissented. Do the math
-
Untrue. Only Dyson relied solely on Philips's 5th ground. Kerr, Brown, Walker>
@nearlylegal@DrJillStein - 13 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.