Yes: In 2013 SC says the single point that decided Assange's case was wrong in law.Why I shd do your work for you?
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 -
Even Mance doesn't say Assange uncertain.
@nearlylegal@DrJillStein -
He says the case can't be reopened but clarified SC got it wrong in the point that persuaded most judges.
-
Nowhere in Bucnys does Mance say Assange wrong. His comment on the VCLT point doesn't say that.
@nearlylegal@DrJillStein - 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Mance dissented in Assange. He delivered the leading judgment in Bucnys. He says Assange is correct.
@nearlylegal@DrJillStein -
>in deciding prosecutors can be judicial authorities for purposes of Framework Agreement. Repeatedly.
@nearlylegal@DrJillStein -
.And he didn't need to do so. Bucnys was Ministries of Justice...
@nearlylegal@DrJillStein
End of conversation
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.