Who decided to appeal Julian Assange’s bail?

Our own CPS is the answer, I think.

Here’s a report from a Swedish media source quoting Karin Rosander, spokeswoman for the Swedish prosecuting authority, as saying the decision to appeal was the CPS’s alone, not theirs. It quotes her as denying her office was involved (translation by Google):

It is not true. I have received confirmation from the British public prosecutor that it is their independent decision …

It is our initiative that the British had not taken on their own. But Swedish prosecutors have no opportunity to formally request one. They do not have the power to a new country.

On the other hand, the CPS website seems to imply the CPS takes instructions from the foreign requesting authority in cases like this. This CPS blogpost from earlier this month (thanks to piombo) says

We act on behalf of the foreign jurisdiction in court and follow their legal instructions … Neither the CPS nor the DPP have any role in decision making on extradition requests from foreign jurisdictions.

That’s consistent with the ambiguous explanation in the CPS’s extradition factsheet

The CPS acts as the representative for the requesting judicial authority in the proceedings before English courts.

and I suppose both may refer narrowly to the question of extradition, where it’s true the CPS has no discretion, rather than to detention or bail pending extradition.

But article 12 of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision suggests Karin Rosander is right, and this is a matter for the CPS:

When a person is arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority shall take a decision on whether the requested person should remain in detention, in accordance with the law of the executing Member State. The person may be released provisionally at any time in conformity with the domestic law of the executing Member State, provided that the competent authority of the said Member State takes all the measures it deems necessary to prevent the person absconding.

The judicial authority executing the warrant being the CPS, as opposed to the issuing authority in Sweden. The fact that the CPS makes the decision doesn’t of course exclude consultation with the Swedes.

I think the answer must be that the CPS made this decision unilaterally – though I’d have thought two hours must have been enough time to call the Swedish prosecutor to consult on a decision all must have known might be necessary.

I’ve asked the CPS to clarify.