So says Carl Gardner, over at HeadofLegal Blog, discussing the Assange case handed down today. He is referring to the fact that:

“Dinah Rose QC, for Julian Assange, was granted a stay of the Supreme Court’s order of 14 days in order to consider an application to reopen proceedings before the Supreme Court. The basis of this application, if it’s made, will be that the Supreme Court’s consideration of the case has been unfair because the parties were given no notice of, or opportunity to address argument on, precisely this point about the Vienna Convention that it seems has been decisive.”

Gardner points out that the Court has the jurisdiction to re-open proceedings where an aspect of their fairness is in doubt, and he opines that the Supreme Court will hear the application and ask Dinah Rose QC to:

“address [the Vienna Convention] points there and then – before the Court technically decides whether to formally reopen – so that the hearing and decision about (a) whether to reopen procedures at all to take account of Vienna Convention arguments and (b) whether to vary the judgment and order because of those arguments, will be rolled up together as one.

The Guardian too give some analysis on this “highly unusual legal development” and suggest that lawyers “may also, concurrently, begin the process of appealing against the judgment to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg”.

Meanwhile, The New Statesman’s David Allen Green raises Assange’s possible litigation strategy,  arguing that he would be better saving his energy and resources for his defence to the substantive charges he faces in Sweden.