Go on then, when did the SC say it’s own decision was “legally incorrect”? In those words.
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 -
>either didn't comment on other 4 or accepted them
@nearlylegal@DrJillStein -
Walker @ 94; Brown @ 95; Kerr @ 109-110
-
SC ought to reopen the case to resolve uncertainty, esp. now Assange excluded from Extradition Act reform
-
(i) It can't; and (ii) there's no uncertainty.
@nearlylegal@DrJillStein - 9 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.