Free after nine days in jail, Julian Assange was told by the judge that he faces almost certain extradition to Sweden to face possible charges. It now appears that it was the Crown Prosecution Service who appealed the previous bail decision. Just why they were involved is a bit of a mystery. It is known that US lawyers are running around trying to drum up a case for a possible prosecution under the Espionage Act. They would certainly then go for his extradition either from the UK or Sweden, depending where he is at the time.
I’ve no idea on their chances of success, but the US-UK extradition treaty of 2003 which was implemented in the Extradition Act of that year, is considered by many to be one-sided because it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK. The NatWest Three was a high profile example. There is no reciprocal right, and issues about the level of proof required are less to extradite from the UK to the US rather than vice-versa.
Meanwhile if you want to find out more about the situation Assange could face in Sweden if they went for him there, go to: http://internationalextraditionblog.com/2010/12/08/julian-assange-sweden-and-u-s-extradition-treaty/ where Douglas C. McNabb discusses the extradition treaty between Sweden and the United States with regard to Julian Assange.
Good summary. Of course, as yet more selective details of the Swedish allegations have been leaked to the press, even though Assange has still apparently yet to be formally charged, this must cast doubt on whether he could now even notionally have a fair trial in Sweden.
The UK Extradition Act is a pernicious piece of legislation that makes it easier for the US to extradite a UK citizen to America than it is to extradite US citizens across internal state borders. Let’s not forget the other infamous UK “hacker” extradition case, Gary McKinnon: http://bit.ly/14Uoun