Julian Assange: Wikileaks founder remains in Ecuadorian embassy as court rules arrest warrant is still valid - as it happened
Judge at Westminster Magistrates' Court to make further ruling on Tuesday
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Julian Assange has lost the first round of a bid to have the arrest warrant against him in the UK dropped.
The Wikileaks founder's lawyer made an application to Westminster Magistrates' Court arguing it has "lost its purpose and its function" since investigations over sexual assault allegations were dropped in Sweden.
But senior district judge Emma Arbuthnot said she was "not persuaded the warrant should be withdrawn".
After hearing new arguments from Mr Assange's legal team on the public interest and his health, she reserved judgement on those submissions until Tuesday.
Mr Assange has been living inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London for six years since the case was brought, over fears it could spark his extradition to the US.
Please allow a moment for the live blog to load
Mr Assange’s lawyers will be able to appeal against the court’s decision.
The Australian activist was on bail when he fled to the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2012, over fears a Swedish investigation could be used to extradite him to the US for Wikileaks’ activities.
But Sweden dropped its investigation into allegations of sexual offences in May 2017, causing a separate European Arrest Warrant to be scrapped.
At the time, the Metropolitan Police confirmed its officers were still required to arrest Mr Assange.
“Westminster Magistrates' Court issued a warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange following him failing to surrender to the court on the 29 June 2012,” a statement said.
“The Metropolitan Police Service is obliged to execute that warrant should he leave the embassy.”
As the Swedish investigation continued in December 2010, Mr Assange was jailed in Wandsworth Prison in isolation for 10 days and then put under house arrest for 550 days under powers granted by an international arrest warrant.
Scotland Yard stood down the 24/7 police presence outside the Ecuadorian embassy building in 2015 but pledged to make “every effort” to arrest Mr Assange if he left.
There had been controversy over the escalating cost of the exercise, which was believed to be over £12m.
The full written ruling has been released, running to more than 2,100 words long.
It says the extradition of Mr Assange to Sweden was ordered by Westminster Magistrates' Court on 24 February 2011.
"Various appeals were then dismissed and on 28 June 2012 a notice to surrender to Belgravia Police Station was served on Mr Assange who by then was resident in the Ecuadorian embassy.He did not attend the police station and a warrant for his arrest was subsequently issued by this court."
The judge said:
The sole issue for me to consider at this stage is whether the warrant issued under section 7 of the Bail Act 1976 (“the Act”) can remain in force when the extradition proceedings have terminated and no proceedings under section 6 of the Act have been initiated."
Mr Assange's lawyers argued that the warrant was "obsolete" because the proceedings requiring Mr Assange to present himself to the court had themselves been dropped.
But the judge said she did not accept the argument that there must be "underlying proceedings".
"It is not uncommon for Bail Act offences to be pursued when the substantive proceedings are no longer in existence," she added.
"Many authorities underline the importance of a defendant attending court when bailed to do so and they describe the way that the administration of justice can be undermined by defendants who fail to attend.
"Having considered the arguments set out above I am not persuaded that the warrant should be withdrawn."
On Twitter, Mr Assange has accused a Canadian broadcaster of "fake news" for reporting on the legal bid being lost. Mr Assange claimed he had only "lost the first of four points", but the judge said in her ruling that she did not consider public interest arguments put forward by his legal team - with their agreement.
Mr Assange's legal team are making further arguments in court over the public interest of future action against Mr Assange, but he has lost the specific bid to get the existing arrest warrant overturned.
In the ongoing court hearing, the judge is hearing public interest arguments from Mr Assange's lawyers that were not considered in the written judgement.
They argue that the failure to surrender on bail can be justified, and that Mr Assange has legitimate reasons.
Mr Assange's lawyer Mark Summers QC argues it is in the interest of court not to proceed with Bail Act charges against Mr Assange.
He has cited this report from a UN working group that found Mr Assange's stay in the Ecuadorean embassy amounted to arbitrary detention
