Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- extradition_skeleton_argument [2020/02/26 12:46] – editor9367251490216
+++ extradition_skeleton_argument [2020/02/26 13:17] – editor9367251490216
@@ Line 697: / Line 697: @@
 https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/26editors-note.html
 https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30WikiLeaks-t.html
 === PAGE 33 ===
+  * "As for the risks posed by these releases, they are real. WikiLeaks' first data dump, the publication of the Afghanistan War Logs, included the names of scores of Afghans that The times and other news organizations had carefully purged from our own coverage. Several news organizations, including ours, reported this dangerous lapse, and months later a Taliban spokesman claimed that Afghan insurgents had been perusing the WikiLeaks site and making a list. I anticipate, with dread, the day we learn that someone identified in those documents has been killed. As for our relationship with WikiLeaks, Julian Assange has been heard to boast that he served as a kind of puppet master, recruiting several news organizations, forcing them to work in concert and choreographing their work. This is characteristic braggadocio -- or, as my Guardian colleagues would say, bollocks. Throughout this experience we have treated Assange as a source."
+. The aforegoing contrasts the actions of the defendant with those of reputable media outlets. He is described as a source. He was warned not to publish the names of informants and others in danger if they were identified. He, according to his former media partners, deliberately chose to do so (in contradistinction to what any self-respecting and professional journalist would do).
+==== C. Abuse of Process - Zakrzewski ====
+. If it is alleged that the particulars contained in an extradition request are materially inaccurate, the Supreme Court has accepted it may amount to an abuse of process. However, even this narrow area of discretion operates so as to preclude the extradition Court from adjudicating upon disputed matters of fact going to the conduct alleged in the requesting state.
+. Thus, in Zakrzewski v. Regional Court in Lodz, Poland [2013] 1 W.L.R 324 the Supreme Court (per Lord Sumption at §13, emphasis added) set out the conditions in which the Court's abuse jurisdiction may be invoked in relation to the description of the conduct:
+  * 153.1 Firstly, the jurisdiction "is exceptional". The statements in the [warrant] Request must comprise "statutory particulars which are wrong or incomplete in some respect which is misleading (though not necessarily intentionally)".
+  * 153.2 Secondly, the true facts required to correct the error or omission "must be clear and beyond legitimate dispute". The abuse of process jurisdiction "is not therefore to be used as an indirect way of mounting a contentious challenge to the factual or evidential basis for the conduct alleged in the warrant, this being a matter for the requesting court".
+  * 153.3 Thirdly, the error or omission must be material to the operation of the statutory scheme.
+  * 153.4 Fourthly, the sole juridical basis for the inquiry into the accuracy of the particulars in the [warrant] Request is abuse of process. The materiality of the error in the warrant will be of critical importance.
+. There appear to be three areas of potential Zakrzewski abuse:
 === PAGE 34 ===