5.55pm: Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, has just made this statement about the Swedish prosecutor – who was the subject of much of the testimony heard today in court:

I challenge you Marianne Ny, come to London, come on Friday, subject yourself to the cross-examination of Geoffrey Robertson

Stephens said Ny had been ready to feed the media with stories but not to speak for herself in court.

Standing outside the court Assange made a similar point about the prosecutor's absence from the hearing. He said:

It's been a long day. What we have seen is process abuse after process abuse being revealed hour after hour. What we have not seen yet is the Swedish prosecutor at these proceedings.

He also asked "Where is the equality?" and said the "unlimited budget of Sweden and the UK" had been on display in the case to extradite him.

5.30pm: An end-of-day summary:

• The hearing has over-run and will resume on Friday at 10.30am.

• Julian Assange's Swedish lawyer, Björn Hurtig, admitted he had made a mistake when he said it was five weeks before Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny said she wanted to interview the WikiLeaks founder. He said texts he discovered yesterday showed it was three.

• Hurtig accused prosecutors of leaking details of the case to the media, specifically telling a Swedish newspaper Assange was suspected of rape.

• Sven-Erik Alhem, a retired Swedish prosecutor, said Ny should have allowed Assange to give his version of events before issuing an arrest warrant. He also said she should not have confirmed his name when it was put to her by the media.

• Clare Montgomery QC, representing the Swedish prosecutor, said Assange must have been aware of the intention to interview him. Alhem said Ny was not wrong to issue a European arrest warrant, but he would have sought to interview him in the UK first.

• Hurtig said Assange had been difficult to contact in mid to late September as he had gone into hiding, following what were described as "death threats" from some US politicians.

5.05pm: The court has now adjourned (Hurtig needed to catch a flight home). Closing arguments are set for 10.30am on Friday.

5pm: Robertson on the timing of Ny's interview request:

Robertson: Ny suggested I'viewing JA on 28 sept - 4 weeks after took over case, 5 1/2 weeks after alleged offences esther addley

estheraddley

Under cross-examination from Robertson, Hurtig has described his error on the date of the Swedish prosecutor's request as "embarrassing". He said he had made sure to mention it so his evidence was correct.

4.55pm: Montgomery has finished and now Robertson, Assange's QC, returns to cross-examine Hurtig.

4.50pm: Montgomery and Hurtig are now disputing whether a DNA test was needed and whether it was necessary for Assange to be in Sweden if one was.

4.40pm: Hurtig (BH) admits he was mistaken when he said Ny had waited five weeks to interview Assange (JA) – he tells the court it was three:

BH admits made error in statement, to JA's favour, that suggested Ny had not tried to I'view JA B4 left sweden on 27/9/10 esther addley

estheraddley

He tells the court that he found the texts from Ny yesterday and is correcting the record today. He says he is busy and has many clients. (He has also said it is possible there were texts between him and Ny he can't remember.)

4.35pm: Montgomery first asks Hurtig if he attempted to contact Assange on 27 September after he was told about the Swedish prosecutor's intention to arrest him. He says he made attempts to contact him. She then asks if it was possible he flew out of Sweden that day after Hurtig told him about the possibility of arrest. Hurtig replies "No". (Hurtig said the prosecutor has authorised Assange to leave Sweden in a phone conversation on 15 September.)

4.15pm: Back after the 10 minute break, Montgomery is asking Hurtig why he failed to contact Assange (JA) when Ny said she had wanted to speak to him:

Montgomery still Xexamining: why cdnt u reach JA? Did u text him? leave a message? Hurtig: I assume so, don't recall esther addley

estheraddley

Hurtig says that it is important to bear in mind that Assange was diffcult to get hold of in mid to late September (see 2.50pm).

4.10pm: The judge is talking about extending the hearing to March, which means that it won't finish today (Hurtig's evidence is still continuing this afternoon).

3.57pm: The court has broken for 10 minutes to allow Hurtig to check his records.

3.55pm: Hurtig is now being cross-examined by Montgomery (representing the Swedish prosecutor). There is some dispute over the exact wording of a text from 22 September and she asks him to get his phone out and check the sent folder. He does, but says that his sent messages aren't saved that far back. She then asks him to check two in his inbox from that time.

3.30pm: Hurtig's summary of his contacts with Ny, some of which were by text message, has broadened out to some of the other details of the case. He says he had concluded the police were leaking plans to interview Assange to the press (which he describes as "appalling") and that he had seen text messages from woman B where she describes herself as "half-asleep" when Assange began to have sex with her without a condom.

Hurtig says he thought carefully about coming to the Belmarsh hearing because of the confidential nature of this material.

2.50pm: Hurtig (BH) says Assange (JA) was at one point difficult to get hold of because he was in hiding following the pronouncements of some US politicians.

BH: thanks to 'death threats' fm US politicians JA was 'worried' (mid sept) 'and he could be difficult to get hold of' esther addley

estheraddley

Assange's lawyer is also disputing the date when he was told by Ny of her intention to prosecute.

2.35pm: The hearing has resumed after lunch with the continuation of testimony from Björn Hurtig, Assange's Swedish lawyer. He is going through the chronology of his contacts with Marianne Ny, the Swedish prosecutor, under questioning from Assange QC Geoffrey Robertson.

1.40pm: Here is Esther Addley with a lunchtime audio report on the main event so far today, the appearance of defence witness Sven Erik Alhem, a retired Swedish prosecutor.

Here are the main points:

• Alhem said he had no interest in the case's outcome, just that Swedish justice was done and seen to be done.

• He said Marianne Ny, the Swedish prosecutor, should not have confirmed Assange's name when the media put it to her.

• He said Assange had not had the opportunity to put forward his side of the case before the arrest warrant was issued.

• Clare Montgomery QC, representing the Swedish prosecution, said Alhem only knew what he had been told by Assange's lawyers and took him through Ny's account of her attempts to interview Assange.

• He said based on his understanding of the case it was not wrong to issue a European arrest warrant against Assange, but he would have attempted to interview him in the UK first.

1.20pm: The court has broken for lunch. Shortly before, Robertson was running through Hurtig's version of events – the court has already been told there are differences with Ny's chronology.

Hurtig is told he can't speak to anyone during the break.

1.15pm: Hurtig has said that within a couple of hours of the Assange allegations being made on 20 August, there were 2-3m search returns online linking the WikiLeaks founder to rape.

1.05pm: The next witness is Assange's Swedish lawyer, Björn Hurtig (BH), who is being cross-examined by Geoffrey Robertson QC (GR) for the defence.

GR taking Hurtig through sheaf of docs relating to Svea appeal court. Submissions and judgement all in writing #assange esther addley

estheraddley

He is also questioned on the possibilty of public trials for rape defendents in Sweden. He says he acted for very high profile rape defendent in 2004-05 with much media attention. He says he asked for a public trial but was denied.

In answer to a further question, he says there is no way he can protect his client from prejudical media coverage.

12.35pm: After some short questioning, Alhem is discharged with thanks from the judge for "coming all this way". The court then rises for a short break.

12.25pm: Alhem says he believes it would be impossible for Assange to be extradited from Sweden to the US without a media storm. He says he is speaking not as an expert in extradition law but as a social commentator.

He tells the judge he is tired because he has been up since 4am but wishes to continue because he is enjoying the atmosphere.

Jones, Assange's junior counsel, will now return to questioning Alhem.

12.10pm: Montgomery asks Alhem to not give "long lectures" in his answers; Alhem replies that he will answer "in my way". There is also an exchange on whether Ny was right to issue a European arrest warrant – see Esther Addley's tweet below for the retired Swedish prosecutor's answer:

Q: given her statement it was reasonable for Ms Ny to issue EAW? A. Certainly. Q and lawful? A quite right. No doubt about that esther addley

estheraddley

Alhem though adds that he would have tried harder to interview Assange in the UK (see also 12pm).

12.00pm: Montgomery asks Alhem if he was the prosecutor in this case if he would have issued a European arrest warrant. Alhem says he would have detained Assange from the beginning.

He also says he would have interviewed Assange in the UK with a Swedish police officer present.

11.55am: Montgomery is reading from Ny's statement a chronology of her attempts to interview Assange in September and October last year.

11.45am: Montgomery has told Mark Stephens', Assange's lawyer, to "sit down".

11.40am: Under cross-examination from Montgomery, Alhem says of Assange that if he was "in his shoes" he would have gone to Sweden immediately to clear his name.

11.30am: Clare Montgomery, QC for the Crown, is now cross-examining Alhem.

11.15am: Alhem is taking questions on procedural issues in Swedish prosecutions. He says it is a "golden rule" that a suspect is allowed to know what he or she is accused of before a prosecution can be brought. He also says there is no reason why Assange could not be questioned in the UK.

11.05am: Alhem is being asked about the conduct of the Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny. He says it was "completely against proper procedure" for her to confirm Assange's name to the media. He also queries the use of "accused" in the documents, saying "suspect" is a better word.

Earlier Alhem had said he had no interest in the outcome of the case. Only that "justice be done and be seen to be done". He said he cannot be "bought for money" – a response to some critics in Sweden.

10.50am: The hearing has resumed. Assange's junior counsel, John Jones, is questioning defence witness Sven Erik Alhem, a retired Swedish prosecutor (now legal commentator). Alhem says he was critical of the handling of the case before Assange's lawyers contacted him.

10.25am: Esther Addley tweets the following:

Some legal experts think unlikely we'll get judgement 2day, #assange team say they don't know. Crown said yest unlikely esther addley

estheraddley

You can follow all her tweets from Belmarsh at @estheraddley

10am: Day two of Julian Assange's extradition hearing.

Assange and his legal team have arrived at Belmarsh magistrates' court, and so too have his supporters. The hearing is scheduled to begin at 10.30am.

Yesterday, the defence and prosecuting QCs made their opening arguments. Assange's QC, Geoffrey Robertson, said his client would not get a fair trial in Sweden and called on a witness, retired Swedish judge Brita Sundberg-Weitman, who said the Swedish prosecutor had "a rather biased view against men in the treatment of of sexual offence cases".

Clare Montgomery QC, representing the Swedish prosecutor, said the allegations against Assange would be offences under English law and she should be extradited. She also said the Swedish prosecutor intends to prosecute. A key defence argument, made again yesterday, is that extradition cannot be for the purposes of questioning.

Esther Addley / @estheraddley will be in the court again, supplying tweets and telephone reports. You can read her full report from yesterday here (excerpt below).

In caustic evidence on the first day of the two-day hearing, Brita Sundberg-Weitman, a former appeal court judge, told Belmarsh magistrates court that Sweden's chief prosecutor, Marianne Ny, who is seeking the WikiLeaks founder's extradition, "has a rather biased view against men". "I can't understand her attitude here. It looks malicious," she said. Geoffrey Robertson QC, acting for Assange, asked if it was her view that Ny wanted "to get [Assange] into her clutches and then arrest him no matter what?" "Yes" said Sundberg-Weitman. "It might be her attitude to have the man arrested and maybe let him suffer for a few weeks to have him softer [for interrogation]" [...] [...] Under cross-examination by Clare Montgomery QC, for the Swedish government, however, Sundberg-Weitman admitted she had no personal knowledge of the conduct of the prosecutor in the case, basing her views instead on what she had been told.

He denies all the allegations and has not been charged.

• This report is compiled by Simon Jeffery at the Guardian based on the Twitter feed of Esther Addley at Belmarsh magistrates' court