Slashdot Mirror

Key facts in this case
- He had to work 5 days a week for a minimum of 40 hours
- He had to wear the company uniform and drive a company-logo van
- He couldn't send someone else to do the work (substitution) (although under limited circumstances a different pimlico employee could do work)
- There were significant limitations on his ability to work for other people or competitors

the courts basically looked at this and said; Yup - he looks an awful lot like an employee rather than an independent self-employed person.

More generally, the way the contract was written shows that Pimlico were trying to present to customers that the plumbers were employees, whilst making the plumbers not employees so that they could limit tax and avoid certain obligations. The UK courts are getting increasingly vociferous in saying that this is not ok.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases...

Ruling

There's nothing to stop them from charging him at any point, except that they're nowhere near having a case against him. Obviously I'd agree that if they did charge him then taking him into custody would be another matter. Remember, taking refuge in an embassy does not prevent criminal charges from being made against you. However, I'll remind you that he is wanted for questioning and skipping bail, not because he has been found guilty of one of the four original charges (the other three have already been dropped as being pretty blatantly false).

Other countries have different legal processes. This is what stops them from charging him. He is wanted for arrest. The High Court judgment makes this clear - see paragraph 142 for the statement from the Swedish prosecutor.

The US repeatedly confirms that a criminal national security investigation into Julian Assange and WikiLeaks is ongoing; this is not a conspiracy, its wide out in the open. They have already sentenced Chelsea (Bradley) Manning to 25 years for parting with the information that Wikileaks disclosed, so its safe to say at the very least in some kind of happy skippy rainbows and unicorns world that he would be detained for questioning if he entered US juristiction.

Sweden isn't part of the US jurisdiction though. Fantasies of rendition aside, there's no reason to think that he'd be extradited to the US from Sweden. If the US wanted him they'd have applied for extradition from the UK - they've already shown to be willing to do this (e.g. Richard O'Dwyer). For a legal extradition from Sweden they'd need the UK to approve anyway.

Actually, he's not just wanted for questioning. Arrest and interrogation is a precursor to being charged in Sweden. The High Court judgment makes this clear - see paragraph 142 for the statement from the Swedish prosecutor.

Claiming that he is only wanted for questioning is misinformed or deceptive.

Justice is what we want to see. Due process is important, and Julian has had access to far more of it than most can afford. He's exhausted his legal appeals though, it's time to submit to the next stage of the process.

Courts in the UK looked at many questions, including would the allegation against Assange constitute rape in the UK, and did the prosecutor have the authority to issue the EAW. Here are extracts from the magistrate's ruling:

City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court
(Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)

The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange

Findings of facts and reasons

I make the following findings of fact from the evidence I have heard: ...

2. In Sweden, a person interrogated for rape is normally detained and held incommunicado during the process. These decisions are taken by a court.

....I heard live evidence from a recently retired Swedish prosecutor. Mr Alhem told me in there is nothing wrong with the EAW in this case. Similarly Brita Sundberg-Weitman said that Ms Ny is entitled to issue an EAW, although not on the facts as she understood them to be. Mr Hurtig is a Swedish lawyer. He may not be an expert on extradition but nevertheless he must have been well placed to discover whether Ms Ny had the appropriate authority, and he has not suggested otherwise. Ms Ny herself has made a statement saying she has the appropriate authority. .... I was also taken to original documents, including the Swedish Code of Statutes. Section 3 says, with reference to the EAW: “A Swedish arrest warrant for the purpose of criminal prosecution is issued by a prosecutor. ... Ms Ny’s details are provided and she signed the warrant. Even without the SOCA certification I have no doubt that Marianne Ny issued the warrant and is a “judicial authority which has the function of issuing arrest warrants”. ...

Assange: would the rape allegation also be rape under English law?

The Magistrates’ Court ruled (emphasis added):

The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.

----------

No, this doesn't work for you since you want him to be guilty before he's even moved.

No, I don't. I just think the question should be answered in court if the allegations are strong enough to support a trial.

If you are thoughtful, you may see some irony in this:

Sweden Angered By Julian Assange Fight, Says It Won't Extradite Him If He Faces Death Penalty

The rape allegation is the most serious and if proven in court could lead to up to four years in jail.

The lawyer for the two women stood by the allegations and criticised Assange for not coming back to be questioned.

"It's an abuse of the asylum instrument, the purpose of which is to protect people from persecution and torture ... It's not about that here," Claes Borgstrom told Reuters.

"He doesn't risk being handed over to the United States for torture or death penalty. He should be brought to justice in Sweden. This is completely absurd."

At the same time, Assange might not have that much to worry about, said

The prosecutors have changed from one that wasn't interested in pursuing investigation (a man) to one that was interested in pursuing investigation (a woman). Male prosecutors not interested in pursuing rape changes isn't a new problem in legal systems.

Can you back up this claim of the women changing their stories?

By the way, there is no question that the rape allegations meet the test to be considered rape under UK law and therefore subject to extradition.

Legal myths about the Assange extradition

[Add: this post is now supplemented by my more detailed post on the legal mythology of Julian Assange; also do see this excellent post by barrister Anya Palmer.]

Please note that particularly relevant in this case are the three English court rulings which are freely available on-line: Magistrates’ Court, High Court, and Supreme Court.

One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”

This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.

(See my post at Jack of Kent for further detail on this.)

The prosecutors have changed from one that wasn't interested in pursuing investigation (a man) to one that was interested in pursuing investigation (a woman). Male prosecutors not interested in pursuing rape changes isn't a new problem in legal systems.

Can you back up this claim of the women changing their stories?

By the way, there is no question that the rape allegations meet the test to be considered rape under UK law and therefore subject to extradition.

Legal myths about the Assange extradition

[Add: this post is now supplemented by my more detailed post on the legal mythology of Julian Assange; also do see this excellent post by barrister Anya Palmer.]

Please note that particularly relevant in this case are the three English court rulings which are freely available on-line: Magistrates’ Court, High Court, and Supreme Court.

One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”

This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.

(See my post at Jack of Kent for further detail on this.)

The prosecutors have changed from one that wasn't interested in pursuing investigation (a man) to one that was interested in pursuing investigation (a woman). Male prosecutors not interested in pursuing rape changes isn't a new problem in legal systems.

Can you back up this claim of the women changing their stories?

By the way, there is no question that the rape allegations meet the test to be considered rape under UK law and therefore subject to extradition.

Legal myths about the Assange extradition

[Add: this post is now supplemented by my more detailed post on the legal mythology of Julian Assange; also do see this excellent post by barrister Anya Palmer.]

Please note that particularly relevant in this case are the three English court rulings which are freely available on-line: Magistrates’ Court, High Court, and Supreme Court.

One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”

This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.

(See my post at Jack of Kent for further detail on this.)

If I understand the nature of the criminal complaint, there's a class of sexual crime that does not exist in the UK that he stands accused of in Sweden, and that this whole mess is going to be a giant can of worms.

Unfortunately, you've just demonstrated your lack of understanding of the nature of the criminal complaint. The original extradition request which was filed by Sweden with the UK, which Assange appealed all the way to the UK's high court, was ruled to satisfy the requirements of "dual criminality" - e.g., the allegations would have been violations of the law in the UK, as well.

You HAVE read through the text of the judgment, right? Not just read "justice4assange's" cherry picking of the bits that make Assange look good?

Here, go educate yourself: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases...

Andrew Wakefield was deliberately fraudulent, and that is why the paper was retracted and his medical license revoked.

Odd that Wakefield's co-author, accused of the same things, had his indictment reversed on appeal. Wakefield did not have malpractice insurance, and his appeal was denied.

And, of course, the oft-quoted Danish study was conducted by a researcher now under indictment for fraud: Paul Thorsen.

Took a few minutes to find because the case was not brought by the RCN, as the judgement has it down as the British Nursing Association (the appellants) and the Inland revenue's National minimum wage compliance team. At least I think this is the judgement being referred to because it certainly is the oldest one I can find that fits the description given. Anyway a link to the case in BAILII

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases...

Basically the BNA lost at the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the Court of Appeal with a unanimous decision.

The decision is pretty easy reading for the layman as well. Not sure why the OP seems to think it was between the RCN and London NHS, and does not bode well for the case he is constructing if they are a lawyer.

Popcorn Time ... no more or less legal than utorrent or any other bittorrent client

The court here came up with a slightly different perspective:

• - even though the claimants did not argue this, the court commented that the developers of Popcorn Time probably authorise copyright infringement (Paragraph 48)

• The Popcorn Time application is a means necessarily used for users to infringe the copyright in many senses. It is the means by which they find what content they want, it is the means by which they access and collect the pieces of the content files using the BitTorrent protocol and it is the media player on which the user actually watches the protected work. Infringement of copyright is inevitable when Popcorn Time is used. That is what it is for. Moreover it is not a tool like a twin tape recorder which could in principle be used by a user for any work (infringing or not). The Popcorn Time application accesses content using its index and that index is controlled by the suppliers. Each Popcorn Time application connects to SUI websites for updates of various sorts and by that means the suppliers of the Popcorn Time application retain control over its use. Whether the suppliers could turn off a user's Popcorn Time application is not clear but in any event they determine what appears in the index.

• - the suppliers of Popcorn Time (as opposed to the code itself, since code can't (yet) commit copyright infringement) had a "common design" with the operators of the websites in question, thereby infringing copyright (Paragraph 55)

• The issue I have to decide is whether the suppliers of the Popcorn Time applications are jointly liable with the operators of the host websites. In my judgment they are. The Popcorn Time application is the key means which procures and induces the user to access the host website and therefore causes the infringing communications to occur. The suppliers of Popcorn Time plainly know and intend that to be the case. They provide the software and provide the information to keep the indexes up to date. I find that the suppliers of Popcorn Time have a common design with the operators of the host websites to secure the communication to the public of the claimants' protected works, thereby infringing copyright.

Popcorn Time ... no more or less legal than utorrent or any other bittorrent client

The court here came up with a slightly different perspective:

• - even though the claimants did not argue this, the court commented that the developers of Popcorn Time probably authorise copyright infringement (Paragraph 48)

• The Popcorn Time application is a means necessarily used for users to infringe the copyright in many senses. It is the means by which they find what content they want, it is the means by which they access and collect the pieces of the content files using the BitTorrent protocol and it is the media player on which the user actually watches the protected work. Infringement of copyright is inevitable when Popcorn Time is used. That is what it is for. Moreover it is not a tool like a twin tape recorder which could in principle be used by a user for any work (infringing or not). The Popcorn Time application accesses content using its index and that index is controlled by the suppliers. Each Popcorn Time application connects to SUI websites for updates of various sorts and by that means the suppliers of the Popcorn Time application retain control over its use. Whether the suppliers could turn off a user's Popcorn Time application is not clear but in any event they determine what appears in the index.

• - the suppliers of Popcorn Time (as opposed to the code itself, since code can't (yet) commit copyright infringement) had a "common design" with the operators of the websites in question, thereby infringing copyright (Paragraph 55)

• The issue I have to decide is whether the suppliers of the Popcorn Time applications are jointly liable with the operators of the host websites. In my judgment they are. The Popcorn Time application is the key means which procures and induces the user to access the host website and therefore causes the infringing communications to occur. The suppliers of Popcorn Time plainly know and intend that to be the case. They provide the software and provide the information to keep the indexes up to date. I find that the suppliers of Popcorn Time have a common design with the operators of the host websites to secure the communication to the public of the claimants' protected works, thereby infringing copyright.

does a service that is used to enhance privacy and block spying have enough non-copyright-infringing uses to make a block disproportionate.

Until such a case goes to court, it's anyone's guess, really. Where the service encourages infringement, or "authorises" it, I suspect that it would be easier to make a case for blocking than if it were entirely neutral, even if it was used for entirely lawful activities too.

The judgment is Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation & Ors v Sky UK Ltd & Ors [2015] EWHC 1082 (Ch)

The legislation is here

Most senior judges in the Council of Europe have, where the ECHR has been incorporated into national law directly or indirectly, have found that they are _obliged_ to consider compatibility with the ECHR in any case where it may be relevant to the case before them, even if the case matter is strictly private -- rather than public, administrative or criminal -- law.

A stunning example is here. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases...

American politicians would rant about this being judicial activism, but the orders made by the judge show he was -- in spite of some harsh language, and in view of all the circumstances that warranted that -- highly accomodating of the local government agency.

And what does the Swedish legal system say about extraditing criminals to the U.S.?

Well, if you're ACTUALLY interested in seeing what the Swedish law says about extradition to the US, you could start by familiarizing yourself with the actual Swedish-US extradition treaty that's been in force since 1963.

After you've read through that, if you're STILL interested, you can go read the Swedish government's publications on what the European Arrest Warrant program entails. There's some good links there where you can actually read the EU's legislation about EAWs, as well as some factual information from Sweden about surrender to and from Sweden under EAW.

After that, you can go read the UK Magistrate Court's decision about the validity of the EAW, in which they upheld the validity of the EAW and ordered Mr. Assange surrendered to Swedish authorities. A little further digging will help you find both the UK High Court's decision as well as the UK Supreme Court's decision on his appeals related to the validity of the EAW.

After you've read all that, if you're REALLY interested in understanding how things work, you can go read even more of the full review of the details of the case, as well as a cogent, well-written piece by a real lawyer in the UK who talks about why Sweden doesn't just "come interview Assange in London."

do they just throw his ass on a plane to the U.S. the second he's stupid enough to set foot on Swedish soil?

Oh, you weren't ACTUALLY interested in learning anything about the ACTUAL facts of the case. You were just trying to repeat a pro-Assange soundbite. Silly me.

And what does the Swedish legal system say about extraditing criminals to the U.S.?

Well, if you're ACTUALLY interested in seeing what the Swedish law says about extradition to the US, you could start by familiarizing yourself with the actual Swedish-US extradition treaty that's been in force since 1963.

After you've read through that, if you're STILL interested, you can go read the Swedish government's publications on what the European Arrest Warrant program entails. There's some good links there where you can actually read the EU's legislation about EAWs, as well as some factual information from Sweden about surrender to and from Sweden under EAW.

After that, you can go read the UK Magistrate Court's decision about the validity of the EAW, in which they upheld the validity of the EAW and ordered Mr. Assange surrendered to Swedish authorities. A little further digging will help you find both the UK High Court's decision as well as the UK Supreme Court's decision on his appeals related to the validity of the EAW.

After you've read all that, if you're REALLY interested in understanding how things work, you can go read even more of the full review of the details of the case, as well as a cogent, well-written piece by a real lawyer in the UK who talks about why Sweden doesn't just "come interview Assange in London."

do they just throw his ass on a plane to the U.S. the second he's stupid enough to set foot on Swedish soil?

Oh, you weren't ACTUALLY interested in learning anything about the ACTUAL facts of the case. You were just trying to repeat a pro-Assange soundbite. Silly me.

Nope, it isn't easier in any way, shape or form. Assange is an Australian. That makes him a foreigner in Sweden, but a commonwealth national/citizen in the UK.

No, the extradition treaty between the UK and US makes absolutely NO distinction between a citizen and a foreigner. The nationality of the person for whom extradition is requested is *irrelevant* to the proceeding.

You may want to consider the following facts:
https://www.gov.uk/government/....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...–US_extradition_treaty_of_2003#UK_cases_where_the_Act_has_been_applied

Specifically: independent review has found the extradition treaty to be fair and balanced; AND - from Jan. 2004 to Dec 2011, 33 UK citizens were extradited to the US under the treaty. That doesn't seem to indicate that citizenship gives any real expectation of "better protection."

The real issue here is that it takes a measure of effort and arm-twisting to setup an extrajudicial kidnapping operation in Europe even for the US.

No, the real issue here is that you're a fucking retard who insists on seeing a conspiracy where there is none. It would be EASIER for them to extradite from the UK directly; Sweden has absolutely nothing to gain by collaborating and reneging on its own obligations under the EAW program as a member of the EU.

the extradition proceedings from UK to Sweden did not concern the substance of the allegations

Absolute and utter bullshit, once again. The UK Supreme Court specifically upheld that the "substance of the allegations" met the dual criminality standard, and upheld the validity of the EAW. The first extradition hearing upheld that the allegations met the double criminality standard and therefore were extraditable offenses. To argue that the substance of the allegations was not considered completely disregards the entirety of his extradition hearings in the UK.

the only thing that stopped Assange from ending up in some Guantanamo-like facility was the asylum he received by Equador.

Well sure... that - plus the fact that the US isn't engaging in some vast conspiracy to kidnap him and send him to Gitmo - is all that's protecting him right now!

He hasn't been formally charged because the Swedish legal system *requires* that he be given the interview which he is hiding from in the Ecuadorean embassy, before he is considered formally charged.

As far as what is alleged, the UK supreme court *also* found that the crimes alleged met the standard of "dual criminality" -e.g., if he had performed the SAME acts in England, he could have been arrested, charged, tried, and convicted for having broken the law there, too. Please DO go read the legal report from the Supreme Court... it's enlightening:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases...

"The problem with photographers is yes, police who don't know better and harass photographers. It's actually a big problem and occurs far more frequently than you may realize."

That's the problem, I don't think it does. I think it's newsworthy precisely because it is such an odd thing to happen.

By law photographers have every right to photograph, so it's not as if there is some section enshrined in law that cripples the rights of photographers, simply a training issue amongst some police officers (one that I believe police forces have been informed to resolve) that they aren't aware that people can in fact take photos in public - even of potentially sensitive things. Googling "police harass photographer" highlights far more cases of it in the US for what it's worth.

"Also, the burden of reasonable doubt does not apply in the UK, which is sad. Indeed, R v Majid was overturned due for this very reason."

I've never heard of this case, but I had a look here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases...

It seems there's absolutely nothing to suggest that what you say is true, merely that there was a procedural error in this specific case. This document seems to suggest the appeal was actually dismissed because the case was strong and despite the judge's mis-step the initial verdict would not have been different regardless.

Fundamentally though, the beyond reasonable doubt clause is actually written directly into this particular clause of RIPA itself, so even if your suggestion were true that this no longer generally applies in the UK, it most definitely applies to this particular provision of RIPA regardless because that's exactly how the law is scripted. See here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

Section 3) b) is the relevant section of the law. It clearly states:

"(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time ifâ"

(a)sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and

(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

Note that there is an assumption that the person has shown they have not been in possession of the key unless it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, thus your assertion that the law relies on good intent is in itself false. The law as written pre-supposes that the defendant has by default shown that they don't have the key - it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable that they in fact do for a prosecution to succeed.

Which highlights my point, most people slagging off RIPA haven't even bothered to read what it says in practice. Most of the commonly cited issues with the UK aren't what they seem in practice - even the one thing I agree is a problem, proliferation of CCTV, is largely misunderstood based on incorrect assumptions such as that speed cameras are all permanently on and can all stream live feeds, that the same is true of ANPR, and that the oft-cited report about numbers of CCTV cameras in the UK is talking about state cameras when in fact it's folding private (e.g. shop) CCTV into the mix.

As I say I have many problems with the UK but much of those cited as examples of how the UK has "become an authoritarian Orwell fantasy" are completely false. Slashdot just isn't a good place to have rational discussions or gain an understanding of these issues because it rapidly enters batshit crazy territory based on people without a clue jumping to extreme conclusions. Take the many people claiming the right to be forgotten in the EU will allow censorship of the media and rewriting of history for example, the actual draft law includes explicit provisions excluding the media and freedom of expression from it so it doesn't even apply in the way people claim anyway.

It'd just be nice if we could have these discussions on Slashdot based on the facts, not nonsense conclusions people have jumped to.

Erm... Google did have standing. You can read the judgment of the court here.

Google was represented and their arguments are referred to throughout the ruling. Also represented were the Spanish, Greek, Polish, Austrian and Italian Governments, and the European Commission.

I don't think that it is possible to appeal Grand Chamber judgments in preliminary ruling applications such as this, but I could be wrong.

You've been reading the Telegraph too much.

No UK Court has ruled that prisoners have to vote (although many already can). The UK Supreme Court did rule that denying almost all prisoners the right to vote was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, agreeing with the ECtHR. But they didn't order that any prisoner be given the vote.

The English and later UK Courts ruled against deporting Abu Qatada on the grounds that there was a real risk he wouldn't receive a fair trial in Jordan. It was clear from the beginning of the saga that this was an issue, and what the government needed to do to fix the issue, but pigheaded home secretaries decided to keep trying to deport him before fixing the issue. Once they had obtained the correct assurances he went quietly. A starting point for this case would be the final Court of Appeal ruling where they point out that Theresa May's appeal was fairly pointless, but they include the background and links to the earlier rulings. Incidentally, the first judgment involving him was in 2007, and first attempt to deport him was in 2005 - so the "decades" claim is false.

I can't find a copy of the third ruling; it wasn't made in 2014 or the last couple of weeks of 2013, and the article is lacking in any sort of citation. The article does, however, repeat the nonsense about judges ignoring the rules. The judges have been very clear that they have been applying the law as passed by Parliament, and whether or not Parliament approves of them, Theresa May's own departmental rules are not law and cannot overturn an Act of Parliament. Hence she's trying to put some stuff in the Immigration Bill to achieve the same thing (although there's a reasonable chance the Courts will declare that incompatible with the ECHR, or work around it to comply with the HRA).

I know that I'm a non-Telegraph-reading liberal, but I have nothing wrong with the first two cases mentioned, and cannot comment on the third in detail, but will generally go with a tribunal and appeals tribunal over the Telegraph when it comes to matters of fact or law.

You've been reading the Telegraph too much.

No UK Court has ruled that prisoners have to vote (although many already can). The UK Supreme Court did rule that denying almost all prisoners the right to vote was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, agreeing with the ECtHR. But they didn't order that any prisoner be given the vote.

The English and later UK Courts ruled against deporting Abu Qatada on the grounds that there was a real risk he wouldn't receive a fair trial in Jordan. It was clear from the beginning of the saga that this was an issue, and what the government needed to do to fix the issue, but pigheaded home secretaries decided to keep trying to deport him before fixing the issue. Once they had obtained the correct assurances he went quietly. A starting point for this case would be the final Court of Appeal ruling where they point out that Theresa May's appeal was fairly pointless, but they include the background and links to the earlier rulings. Incidentally, the first judgment involving him was in 2007, and first attempt to deport him was in 2005 - so the "decades" claim is false.

I can't find a copy of the third ruling; it wasn't made in 2014 or the last couple of weeks of 2013, and the article is lacking in any sort of citation. The article does, however, repeat the nonsense about judges ignoring the rules. The judges have been very clear that they have been applying the law as passed by Parliament, and whether or not Parliament approves of them, Theresa May's own departmental rules are not law and cannot overturn an Act of Parliament. Hence she's trying to put some stuff in the Immigration Bill to achieve the same thing (although there's a reasonable chance the Courts will declare that incompatible with the ECHR, or work around it to comply with the HRA).

I know that I'm a non-Telegraph-reading liberal, but I have nothing wrong with the first two cases mentioned, and cannot comment on the third in detail, but will generally go with a tribunal and appeals tribunal over the Telegraph when it comes to matters of fact or law.

You've been reading the Telegraph too much.

No UK Court has ruled that prisoners have to vote (although many already can). The UK Supreme Court did rule that denying almost all prisoners the right to vote was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, agreeing with the ECtHR. But they didn't order that any prisoner be given the vote.

The English and later UK Courts ruled against deporting Abu Qatada on the grounds that there was a real risk he wouldn't receive a fair trial in Jordan. It was clear from the beginning of the saga that this was an issue, and what the government needed to do to fix the issue, but pigheaded home secretaries decided to keep trying to deport him before fixing the issue. Once they had obtained the correct assurances he went quietly. A starting point for this case would be the final Court of Appeal ruling where they point out that Theresa May's appeal was fairly pointless, but they include the background and links to the earlier rulings. Incidentally, the first judgment involving him was in 2007, and first attempt to deport him was in 2005 - so the "decades" claim is false.

I can't find a copy of the third ruling; it wasn't made in 2014 or the last couple of weeks of 2013, and the article is lacking in any sort of citation. The article does, however, repeat the nonsense about judges ignoring the rules. The judges have been very clear that they have been applying the law as passed by Parliament, and whether or not Parliament approves of them, Theresa May's own departmental rules are not law and cannot overturn an Act of Parliament. Hence she's trying to put some stuff in the Immigration Bill to achieve the same thing (although there's a reasonable chance the Courts will declare that incompatible with the ECHR, or work around it to comply with the HRA).

I know that I'm a non-Telegraph-reading liberal, but I have nothing wrong with the first two cases mentioned, and cannot comment on the third in detail, but will generally go with a tribunal and appeals tribunal over the Telegraph when it comes to matters of fact or law.

According to the English High Court, the rape allegation comes from him having sex with someone while she was asleep - the non-use of a condom being an aggravating factor.

The not-using-a-condom is a separate offence of sexual molestation, with the other woman. He's also accused of a second count of sexual molestation against her (for rubbing himself against her, against her will) and one of unlawful coercion for using force against her.

And yes, from my understanding of Swedish law, they do have different degrees of "rape", and even if they don't, they will almost certainly have different levels of sentence.

It seems that every time Assange comes up I have to paste this, so here goes. From the English High Court judgment, he is accused of 4 offences, as follows:

1. Unlawful coercion

        On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm. Assange, by using violence. forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2. Sexual molestation

        On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

3. Sexual molestation

        On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4. Rape

        On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.

        It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."

So what he is is alleged to have done (whether or not he did so) is definitely rape under both Swedish and English law.

This goes directly against prior decisions by the European Court of Human Rights. There is very clear and unambiguous legal precedent, that a person under criminal investigation need not bear witness against himself.

As usual, the truth is more complicated, and the legal situation isn't clear and unambiguous.

This law has been in force for over a decade, and there have been a few convictions using this law, and a couple of appeals. The quote from Marttinen v Finland is lifted almost straight from Saunders v UK , where there was similarly a breach of Article 6 through the use of self-incrimination. However, as the Court notes in paragraph 69 of Marttinen, "not all coercive measures give rise to the conclusion of an unjustified interference with the right not to incriminate oneself," again referring back to Saunders.

The issue of whether this law is an unjustified interference with the privilege against self-incrimination (either under English common law, or Article 6 of the ECHR) was discussed by the English Court of Appeal in R v S & Anor back in 2008. The Court found that this law didn't necessarily engage the privilege against self-incrimination (applying both UK law and Saunders), arguing that the passwords existed independent of the defendants' wills; "The actual answers [given by the defendants; i.e. the passwords], that is to say the product of the appellants' minds could not, of themselves, be incriminating. The keys themselves simply open the locked drawer, revealing its contents."

The Court's position seems to be that the passwords themselves aren't incriminating, it is the material on the computers that is. Therefore divulging the password isn't necessarily self-incrimination. However, the Court did note that it could be that the defendant's knowledge of the passwords could be incriminating (e.g. if the prosecution needed to use it to prove that the defendant had created etc. the encrypted files) - in such a case then the defendant's knowledge of the password wouldn't be admissible as evidence, protecting the privilege against self-incrimination. Similarly, if there was an issue with disclosing the password being incriminating for another reason, other evidence could be declared inadmissible. The privilege against self-incrimination doesn't mean you can't be made to tell the police stuff, but that self-incriminating stuff coerced out of you can't (always) be used against you in a criminal trial.

The Court then went on to discuss whether, even if the privilege was engaged, the law was a "proportionate and permissible" interference with it - and they found that it was, due to the limits on it, what it achieved and the various procedural safeguards in place.

I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced by the argument, or the analogy with the key to a locked draw, or a blood sample to show blood alcohol levels, but I think it is far from clear that this law breaks Article 6. It would, however, be useful to get clarification from the ECtHR either way.

This goes directly against prior decisions by the European Court of Human Rights. There is very clear and unambiguous legal precedent, that a person under criminal investigation need not bear witness against himself.

As usual, the truth is more complicated, and the legal situation isn't clear and unambiguous.

This law has been in force for over a decade, and there have been a few convictions using this law, and a couple of appeals. The quote from Marttinen v Finland is lifted almost straight from Saunders v UK , where there was similarly a breach of Article 6 through the use of self-incrimination. However, as the Court notes in paragraph 69 of Marttinen, "not all coercive measures give rise to the conclusion of an unjustified interference with the right not to incriminate oneself," again referring back to Saunders.

The issue of whether this law is an unjustified interference with the privilege against self-incrimination (either under English common law, or Article 6 of the ECHR) was discussed by the English Court of Appeal in R v S & Anor back in 2008. The Court found that this law didn't necessarily engage the privilege against self-incrimination (applying both UK law and Saunders), arguing that the passwords existed independent of the defendants' wills; "The actual answers [given by the defendants; i.e. the passwords], that is to say the product of the appellants' minds could not, of themselves, be incriminating. The keys themselves simply open the locked drawer, revealing its contents."

The Court's position seems to be that the passwords themselves aren't incriminating, it is the material on the computers that is. Therefore divulging the password isn't necessarily self-incrimination. However, the Court did note that it could be that the defendant's knowledge of the passwords could be incriminating (e.g. if the prosecution needed to use it to prove that the defendant had created etc. the encrypted files) - in such a case then the defendant's knowledge of the password wouldn't be admissible as evidence, protecting the privilege against self-incrimination. Similarly, if there was an issue with disclosing the password being incriminating for another reason, other evidence could be declared inadmissible. The privilege against self-incrimination doesn't mean you can't be made to tell the police stuff, but that self-incriminating stuff coerced out of you can't (always) be used against you in a criminal trial.

The Court then went on to discuss whether, even if the privilege was engaged, the law was a "proportionate and permissible" interference with it - and they found that it was, due to the limits on it, what it achieved and the various procedural safeguards in place.

I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced by the argument, or the analogy with the key to a locked draw, or a blood sample to show blood alcohol levels, but I think it is far from clear that this law breaks Article 6. It would, however, be useful to get clarification from the ECtHR either way.

The Swedish systems allows for this, so while it may not be corrupt, its laws are not the same as in the U.S.

If it helps, what he is accused of was also found to be rape under English law, and may well be rape under other laws, so it isn't necessarily the case that Swedish laws are different, or particularly unusual.

The accusation of rape (translated into English for the High Court) reads as follows:

On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state. ... The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity.

To me that seems to have the key issues of sex and a lack of consent, that tend to be the corner-stone of definitions of rape. Whether or not there was consent (or the events actually happened) is obviously a question for trial.

I'm not an expert on Swedish criminal procedure, but the willingness of the "injured parties" to "file charges" is usually irrelevant in criminal justice systems. The state brings the charges, the "injured parties" may be witnesses, if needed.

There were a number of reasons why, for a life sentence to remain compatible with Article 3, there had to be both a prospect of release and a possibility of review. Firstly, it was axiomatic that a prisoner could not be detained unless there were legitimate penological grounds for that detention. The balance between the justifications for detention was not necessarily static and could shift in the course of the sentence. It was only by carrying out a review at an appropriate point in the sentence that these factors or shifts could be properly evaluated. Secondly, incarceration without any prospect of release or review carried the risk that the prisoner would never be able to atone for his offence, whatever he did in prison and however exceptional his progress towards rehabilitation. Thirdly, it would be incompatible with human dignity for the State forcefully to deprive a person of his freedom without at least providing him with the chance to someday regain that freedom. Moreover, there was now clear support in European and international law for the principle that all prisoners, including those serving life sentences, should be offered the possibility of rehabilitation and the prospect of release if rehabilitation was achieved.

But that has been seen by some as classic European, human-rights, wishy-washy liberalism at its finest. It doesn't that people can't be locked up for life, but if they are, there has to be some review process and some way (more than merely theoretical) that they can "earn" their release.

There were a number of reasons why, for a life sentence to remain compatible with Article 3, there had to be both a prospect of release and a possibility of review. Firstly, it was axiomatic that a prisoner could not be detained unless there were legitimate penological grounds for that detention. The balance between the justifications for detention was not necessarily static and could shift in the course of the sentence. It was only by carrying out a review at an appropriate point in the sentence that these factors or shifts could be properly evaluated. Secondly, incarceration without any prospect of release or review carried the risk that the prisoner would never be able to atone for his offence, whatever he did in prison and however exceptional his progress towards rehabilitation. Thirdly, it would be incompatible with human dignity for the State forcefully to deprive a person of his freedom without at least providing him with the chance to someday regain that freedom. Moreover, there was now clear support in European and international law for the principle that all prisoners, including those serving life sentences, should be offered the possibility of rehabilitation and the prospect of release if rehabilitation was achieved.

But that has been seen by some as classic European, human-rights, wishy-washy liberalism at its finest. It doesn't that people can't be locked up for life, but if they are, there has to be some review process and some way (more than merely theoretical) that they can "earn" their release.

That puzzled me as well; the law specifically states that the "right to a lawyer" (which can be delayed anyway) only applies when the person is detained at a police station, not anywhere else.

What really disturbs me, though, was that the only case on this law I could find involved a guy who was illegally detained and questioned under this law (despite actually being a terrorist). The judge didn't have a problem with the lack of a solicitor noting that even if one did come along "he would have nothing to do" because the person being questioned has to answer all questions and fully comply. Somehow the judge failed to spot that the solicitor might be able to point out that, as in that case, the initial detention was illegal...

"This case was about if an elderly man .. deserved to be "struck off" the medical record. It was the judge's conclusion that Walker-Smith was essentially an unwitting dupe

I hope you don't mind me saying so, but you're making up your own quotes and talking nonsense and your retrospective re-interpreting of the judge's conclusion is totally erroneous, dishonest and bogus.

Judge Mitting's full Judgment:

"The panel had no alternative but to decide whether Professor Walker-Smith had told the truth to it and to his colleagues, contemporaneously. The GMC's approach to the fundamental issues in the case led it to believe that that was not necessary -- an error from which many of the subsequent weaknesses in the panel's determination flowed" ..

"The panel's determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it. Miss Glynn, on the basis of sensible instructions, does not invite me to remit it to a fresh Fitness to Practice panel for redetermination. The end result is that the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are both quashed."

"Stealing" has both a legal meaning, and a layman meaning. For the latter, you can argue semantics all night. For the former, it will depend on jurisdictions, but as far as English law (which is relevant here), it is definitely not theft. You can have a look at the relevant statute law, or case law such as Boardman v Phipps, Oxford v Moss or Phillips v Mulcaire (although more obiter stuff, more in the Court of Appeal case).

Legally, in England, you cannot steal information or data. It is that simple.

"Stealing" has both a legal meaning, and a layman meaning. For the latter, you can argue semantics all night. For the former, it will depend on jurisdictions, but as far as English law (which is relevant here), it is definitely not theft. You can have a look at the relevant statute law, or case law such as Boardman v Phipps, Oxford v Moss or Phillips v Mulcaire (although more obiter stuff, more in the Court of Appeal case).

Legally, in England, you cannot steal information or data. It is that simple.

It's possible deleting a load of critical system files (shutting down various military networks) and removing over 2,000 user accounts may have caused some of the damage (both long-term costs of replacing, and call-out fees for technicians during the short-term panic of working out what was going). If you want more details of what he is accused of, read the first few paragraphs of this judgment.

For the record, according to one of the court rulings he was accused of the following:

"Between February 2001 and March 2002 he gained unauthorised access to 97 computers belonging to and used by the US Government... From those computers, he extracted the identities of certain administrative accounts and associated passwords. Having gained access to those administrative accounts, he installed unauthorised remote access and administrative software called "remotely anywhere" that enabled him to access and alter data upon the American computers at any time and without detection by virtue of the programme masquerading as a Windows operating system.

Once "remotely anywhere" was installed, Mr McKinnon proceeded to install his "suite of hacking tools" – software that he used to facilitate further compromises to the computers which also facilitated the concealment of his activities. Using this software, he was able to scan over 73,000 US Government computers for other computers and networks susceptible to compromise in a similar fashion. He was thus able to lever himself from network to network and into a number of significant Government computers in different parts of the USA. The relevant ones were:

1. 53 Army computers, including computers based in Virginia and Washington that controlled the Army's Military District of Washington network and are used in furtherance of national defence and security [charges 1 to 2]
2. 26 Navy computers, including US Naval Weapons Station Earle, New Jersey. This was responsible for replenishing munitions and supplies for the deployed Atlantic Fleet [charges 6 to 8]
3. 16 NASA computers [charges 12 to 15]
4. 1 Department of Defense computer [charges 17 to 18].

Once the computers were accessible by Mr McKinnon, he deleted data including:

1. Critical operating system files from nine computers, the deletion of which shut down the entire US Army's Military District of Washington network of over 2000 computers for 24 hours, significantly disrupting Governmental functions
2. 2,455 user accounts on a US Army computer that controlled access to an Army computer network, causing those computers to reboot and become inoperable
3. Critical Operating system files and logs from computers at US Naval Weapons Station Earle, one of which was used for monitoring the identity, location, physical condition, staffing and battle readiness of Navy ships. Deletion of these files rendered the Base's entire network of over 300 computers inoperable at a critical time immediately following 11 September 2001 and thereafter left the network vulnerable to other intruders.

He also copied data and files onto his own computers, including operating system files containing account names and encrypted passwords from 22 computers. These comprised:

1. 189 files from US Army computers
2. 35 files from US Navy computers, including approximately 950 passwords from server computers at Naval Weapons Station Earle
3. 6 files from NASA computers

Mr McKinnon's conduct was intentional and calculated to influence and affect the US Government by intimidation and coercion. As a result of his conduct, damage was caused to computers by impairing their integrity, availability and operation of programmes, systems, information and data on the computers, rendering them unreliable. The cost of repair totalled over $700,000."

Slightly more than a burglar walking in the front door and claiming the costs of upgrading the locks. More like breaking in (maybe through a weak door), completely trashing the place and leaving.

McKinnon even sued the CPS over their decision not to prosecute him, and lost (judgment here). The CPS really don't want to prosecute him.

February's judgement which appears to have been conducted ex parte (without the respondents or their representation present) and resulted in summary judgement for Dramatico et. al.

Telling in para. 17:

For the purposes of these proceedings, the Claimants rely in particular upon the copyrights which the relevant Claimant owns in each of the recordings in the following sample albums:
Recording Claimant
"The House" by Katie Melua Dramatic Entertainment Ltd
"It's Not Me, It's You" by Lily Allen EMI Records Ltd
"Last Night On Earth" by Noah & The Whale Mercury Records Ltd
"Lights" by Ellie Goulding Polydor Ltd
"Valhalla Dancehall" by British Sea Power Rough Trade Records Ltd
"Everybody Wants To Be On TV" by Scouting For Girls Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd
"What Did You Expect From The Vaccines?" by The Vaccines Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd
"Hold Me Down" by You Me At Six Virgin Records Ltd
"Seasons Of My Soul" by Rumer Warner Music UK Ltd
"The Defamation of Strickland Banks" by Plan B 679 Recordings Ltd

Like I'd even consider buying anything from those "artists" on CD, much less pull them down from a Torrent site! What the fuck do they think I am, some spotty little fucking urchin?

Pedant point: haven't TPB stopped using Torrents now? Don't they use Magnet links? This would render this judgement and the following order irrelevant.

When in the recent past have you seen a court rule on copyright with common sense?

I'm not sure that Usedsoft applied common sense, but rather some convoluted reasoning, but the outcome seems sensible enough. Picking on rulings relevant here, I think the US court's decision in Wallace v. IBM was common sense, as was the finding of the German court in Welte v. Skype.

Perhaps look also at Griggs v. Evans — a pragmatic decision on the facts, to my mind.

Sure, there are some odd judgments, but there are some sensible, practical judges out there too.

Did you even read the on this, Mr. Ignorance?

Apple lied. I shall quote the ruling here:

21. I turn to the last paragraph. I do not think the order as made precluded any addition to the required notice if that addition had been true and did not undermine the effect of the required notice. But I do consider that adding false and misleading material was illegitimate. For by adding such material the context of the required notice is altered so that it will be understood differently.

22. Here what Apple added was false and misleading. I turn to analyse it. The first sentence reads:

However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design.

That is false in the following ways:

(a) "Regarding the same patent." No patent of any kind has been involved in Germany or here, still less "the same patent."

(b) As regards the Community Registered Design, the German Courts held that neither the Galaxy 10.1 nor the 8.9 infringed it. As to the 7.7 there was for a short while a German provisional order holding that it infringed. Whether there was a jurisdiction to make that order is very doubtful for the reasons given in my earlier judgment but in any event the order had been (or should have been) discharged by the time the Contested Notice was published.

(c) There is a finding and injunction, limited to Germany alone, that the 10.1 and 8.9 infringe German unfair competition law. But the statement is likely to be read as of more general application.

23. The second sentence reads:

A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc.

That is misleading by omission. For the US jury specifically rejected Apple's claim that the US design patent corresponding to the Community Design in issue here was infringed. The average reader would think that the UK decision was at odds with that in the US. Far from that being so, it was in accordance with it.

24. The third sentence reads:

So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung wilfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.

This is calculated to produce huge confusion. The false innuendo is that the UK court came to a different conclusion about copying, which is not true for the UK court did not form any view about copying. There is a further false innuendo that the UK court's decision is at odds with decisions in other countries whereas that is simply not true.

25. The reality is that wherever Apple has sued on this registered design or its counterpart, it has ultimately failed. It may or may not have other intellectual property rights which are infringed. Indeed the same may be true the other way round for in some countries Samsung are suing Apple. But none of that has got anything to do with the registered design asserted by Apple in Europe. Apple's additions to the ordered notice clearly muddied the water and the message obviously intended to be conveyed by it.

Maybe you should go read the ruling, it's conveniently linked from Apple's website. But to save you the trouble, here is the link to the ruling of the Court of Appeal:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

Go read paragraph 85. I'll wait.

What do you know, Apple is in complete compliance.

What's more if you read paragraph 82 you'll note that the Court of Appeal didn't even have a problem with the quotes ("not as cool", etc.) being included. It was their inclusion of the ruling from the German courts that the Court of Appeal felt was confusing. Oh, and in paragraph 86 the judge reduced the amount of time that they have to maintain the statement.

Looks to me like Apple is complying and the Court of Appeal isn't too fussed in general.

Exactly what in the below statement is inaccurate?

On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limitedls Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do notinfringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the Highcourt is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:

"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."

"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.

As far as I know, all of the Apple-written text is factually accurate. The only thing that could even be called opinion is saying the "judge made several important points". It would be Apple's opinion that the points are important. But that is an extremely minor nitpick.

Non-compliant, sure. Inaccurate, no. The two aren't necessarily the same thing.

Exactly what in the below statement is inaccurate?

On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limitedls Galaxy Tablet Computer, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do notinfringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the Highcourt is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html.

In the ruling, the judge made several important points comparing the designs of the Apple and Samsung products:

"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."

"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."

That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 October 2012. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe.

However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad.

As far as I know, all of the Apple-written text is factually accurate. The only thing that could even be called opinion is saying the "judge made several important points". It would be Apple's opinion that the points are important. But that is an extremely minor nitpick.

Non-compliant, sure. Inaccurate, no. The two aren't necessarily the same thing.

It appears the main objection is the statement is on a separate page and only linked from the hompage

The judge said that a link from the home page would be all that's needed. It is only now that the statement has to appear on the home page.

Paragraphs 85 and 86

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html [bailii.org]

And if you read the ruling instead of checking CSS, you'll see that none of that matters. Specifically, whereas Samsung drew a distinction between home pages and websites in point 4 of the ruling, the judge chose in point 57 to not give Samsung everything it requested, instead only specifying that the notice be on the U.K. website (rather than all EU websites), that it only be posted for 6 months (rather than the 1 year requested), and that it be on the website (rather than specifying home page).

And if you check the actual notice Apple posted, you'll see that it's posted in 14 point Arial text, thus complying with what the judge ruled in point 57.

You didn't read far enough (neither did I, to be fair; someone else pointed it out to me). If you read further down in the court document, you'll see that the part you're referencing is Samsung's terms that they were seeking from the ruling, and that the judge's actual ruling is at the bottom. If you read the ruling, you'll see the following:

57. I am not persuaded that the list of websites in Schedule 1, other than the United Kingdom website, would be fair or appropriate. I am also not persuaded that the statement needs to be on the websites for one year. This is a very fast moving industry and I bear in mind the risk of prejudice to Apple and I will require the statement to be on the United Kingdom website of Apple corporation for six months.

While Samsung's terms indicated that the notice should be on the home page of the website (and used terminology sufficient to draw a distinction between a home page and a more general website), the judge's ruling only specified that the notice needs to be on the website, with no indication that it must be on the home page.

Also, related to what you were talking about, the judge was well aware of Apple's proclivity to try and suggest that Samsung was copying:

51. In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it. The reference to copying is exactly that. It is clear that copying plays no part in this case for Registered Community Design infringement, but to many people outside the circles of intellectual property law to say something infringes a Registered Community Design and to say someone copied your design or your product is to say the same thing.

That said, he later goes on to say that he more or less considers that a moot point since Samsung and Apple are big boys who can take care of themselves and that forcing Apple to post the ads balances things out. So, you were spot-on correct about Apple not being required to apologize or offer any other sort of statement, other than that one line of required text.

Indeed, you are quite right! Thanks for the correction.

To quickly go into what difference that makes for anyone else reading along, the text I incorrectly attributed to the judge up above is actually Samsung's request for what Apple should be asked to do. If you read through the ruling, the judge says:

I am not persuaded that the list of websites in Schedule 1, other than the United Kingdom website, would be fair or appropriate. I am also not persuaded that the statement needs to be on the websites for one year. This is a very fast moving industry and I bear in mind the risk of prejudice to Apple and I will require the statement to be on the United Kingdom website of Apple corporation for six months.

So, towards that, Apple likely is not breaking the ruling by only linking the text from their front page, rather than putting it on their front page proper.

Interestingly, the judge also addresses the topic many people here are bringing up about how Apple is insinuating that infringement occurred, despite having to cite the ruling:

In my judgment, Apple are carefully trying to say something which contains an innuendo that Samsung infringe without actually saying it. [... T]o many people outside the circles of intellectual property law to say something infringes a Registered Community Design and to say someone copied your design or your product is to say the same thing.

But then he later goes on to basically say that he feels as if Samsung's and Apple's comments on that topic balance each other out, so it doesn't matter.

All they acknowledge is the court decision that Samsung did not infringe.

...which is all that they were required to do according to the ruling.

To quote directly from the actual ruling, here's what Apple was required to do:

(4) Within seven days of the date of this Order the Defendant shall, at its own expense, (a) post in a font size no small than Arial 14 pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on the home pages of its EU websites ("the Defendant's Websites"), as specified in Schedule 1 to this order, together with a hyperlink to the judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 09 July 2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on the Defendant's Websites for a period of one year from the date of this Order or until further order of the Court

[...]

The following notice shall be posted and displayed upon the Defendant's Websites [...]

"On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronics (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design 000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High Court is available via the following link [insert hyperlink]."

And then it says that the same thing needs to be posted in a lot of magazines. That's all that Apple was required to do, and near as I can tell, that sentence is the very first one in Apple public statement on their website. You've apparently bought into a fiction for what Apple was required to do as a result of this ruling. Granted, there was a lot of hyperbole swirling around after the ruling, so it's not surprising that people are incorrectly believing that apologies and statements like the ones you were expecting were required, but those expectations have no basis in reality.