By Melissa Davies

A tall man loudly greets a group in front of me at the court cafeteria, catching my attention. It's Julian Assange. He appears extremely relaxed and at ease among the crowd of reporters from all over the world who have been listening to the intimate details of his relationships.

When his extradition hearing is called into the courtroom he appears relaxed there too. Sometimes he chats with the two security guards who sit with him in the dock - a kind of glass cage in the court. There is however, a small opening which runs along the bottom of the glass and through this small gap, Julian Assange actively participates in his own defence. He passes notes frequently to his defence team which consists of at least six people.

The mood between the defence and the prosecution teams is tense and only seems moments away from spilling over into a playground brawl. Defence lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC stands to interrupt while prosecutor Clare Montgomery is cross-examining a witness. "Would you sit down while I'm asking a question Mr Robertson!" she says sternly.

The witness, a colourful character from Sweden, does not hear Montgomery's comment to Robertson and bellows in an accusing tone "Were you making a remark about me?!"

The judge finally steps in to calm his court. He turns to the witness - Sven Erik Ablem, a Swedish legal commentator. "You are clearly tired Mr Ablem. Would you like to stop or continue?"

"Yes, I am tired. I've been up since 4am" replies Ablem, a wry smile spreading across his face. "But I will continue …I like the atmosphere!" he declared to much laughter throughout the court.

The defence team have clearly done their research in finding the most colourful and passionate critics of the extradition of Julian Assange, but the strength of their argument see-saws when cross-examined by prosecutor Clare Montgomery.

Without fail, Montgomery has seemingly shown their evidence to be entirely based on opinion without any real knowledge of the police case against Assange on four allegations of rape and sexual assault.

The main argument of the defence is that if Assange goes to Sweden he will not get a fair trial because rape cases are conducted behind closed doors there.

The prosecution argue that whether or not it is conducted behind closed doors, the court has an obligation to hold the proceedings in a fair and balanced manner. It is not for the defence to rule on the integrity of the Swedish justice process.

But before it can get to that stage, before a Swedish judge, the Judge at the Belmarsh Magistrate's Court in south London must make a decision about whether Assange should be extradited to Sweden or not. That is expected next week.

And while the matter of passing Julian Assange from one judge to another is considered, he is also subject to another judgement - that of his WikiLeaks supporters. Ironically, without whom he would never have earned the high-profile to bring about the publicity which surrounds the rape allegations against him.