This topic tends to cause people with no knowledge or experience of the English legal system to come out with some crazy stuff.

Firstly, judgements in England are typically delivered orally. The ten minutes refers to the time taken to read out the judgement in open court, not the time taken to deliberate.

Secondly, and this is a very important point that people here tend to forget, this has nothing to do with whether he is guilty or not.

Here are the facts: Sweden issued a European arrest warrant (EAW) for Assange, and want him to face allegations of rape and sexual assault. As a member of the EU, the UK is obliged to transfer him to Sweden, as per the conditions of the warrant. The EAW is very useful, and makes a lot of sense: EU citizens can move and live between EU member states freely, and the EAW is an extension of that.

It is not of relevance to the English courts whether Assange is guilty or not: that's for the Swedish courts to ascertain. It is widely accepted amongst legal circles that Assange's defence is very weak. His defence team are trying to get him off on a technicality - the treaty that governs EU arrest warrants states that requests must be made by "competent judicial authorities", and they're arguing that the Swedish prosecutor isn't a "judicial" official.

That's it. That's all they have. Not honouring the EAW would have huge implications for extradition cases across Europe. I think it's quite likely Assange will be handed over to Sweden, but not because of some vendata or conspiracy - simply because he has no case with regards to his extradition. Assange could very well be totally innocent, but that's a matter he should argue in Sweden where the alleged offence was committed, not the UK.