Skip to content

John Jones to Per Samuelson


53-54 Doughty Street, London WC1N 2LS
Telephone 020 7404 1313
Fax 020 7404 2283/84
DK Chancery Lane
Email enquiries@doughtystreet.co.uk
Website www.doughtystreet.co.uk

3rd October 2014

Dear Mr. Samuelsson,

I am a barrister and Queen’s Counsel, specializing in extradition law at the Bar of England and Wales. I have previously represented Julian Assange in the extradition proceedings in this jurisdiction concerning Sweden’s request for his extradition pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (‘EAW’).

In response to your request, I can confirm as follows.

Section 179 of the Extradition Act 2003 provides as follows.

179 Competing claims to extradition

(1) This section applies if at the same time —

(a) there is a Part 1 warrant in respect of a person, a certificate has been issued under section 2 in respect of the warrant, and the person has not been extradited in pursuance of the warrant or discharged, and

(b) there is a request for the same person’s extradition, a certificate has been issued under section 70 in respect of the request, and the person has not been extradited in pursuance of the request or discharged.

(2) The Secretary of State may —

(a) order proceedings (or further proceedings) on one of them (the warrant of the request) to be deferred until the other one has been disposed of, if neither the warrant nor the request has been disposed of;

(b) order the person’s extradition in pursuance of the warrant to be deferred until the request has been disposed of, if an order for his extradition in pursuance of the warrant has been made;

(c) order the person’s extradition in pursuance of the request to be deferred until the warrant has been disposed of, if an order for his extradition in pursuance of the request has been made;

(3) In applying subsection (2) the Secretary of State must take account in particular of these matters —

(a) the relative seriousness of the offences concerned;

(b) the place where each offence was committed (or alleged to have been committed);

(c) the date when the warrant was issued and the date when the request was received;

(d) whether, in the case of each offence, the person is accused of its commission (but not alleged to have been convicted) or is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction.

The effect of this section, therefore, is that Sweden’s request for Mr. Assange’s extradition could have caused any request by the United States for Mr. Assange’s extradition to be deferred.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions in relation to the foregoing.

Yours sincerely,

John Jones QC
Doughty Street Chambers