I see many points of law on the base of which an appeal would win.
For example, forcing witnesses to say a statement, and then writing it down out of its context, sending essential (as it appears during the trial) documents to witnesses or experts in a timing such that they cannot read them, wrong characterization of medical notions with the aim to induce confusion, etc.
In total, there are easily 20 or more points which would have this trial totally moot if it was held in France for example, and I'm sure that UK's version of justice is not that different.
Given previous precedent such as the Gary McKinnon case, I rather hope the High Court would quash the verdict and prevent Mr Assange's extradition.
The High Court may well write scathing remarks about the prosecution's conduct, but I'd be surprised if any substantive action were taken given that the prosecuting counsel represents a foreign government and the courts are loathe to intrude upon foreign affairs.
> Is there any court in UK to which ask to undo and rejudge?
Yes. All extradition judgements may be appealed to the High Court of England and Wales (or, where relevant, the equivalent in Scotland).
However, such appeals may only be made on a point of law, not fact. For example, the judge misapplying the law is a point of law so the appeal can be heard.
However, a rebuttal of fact (e.g. "Mr Assange did not commit the crime he was accused of") would be a point of fact and thus such an appeal could not be heard.
Furthermore, if the High Court refuses to hear the appeal or decides against Mr Assange, it can be sent to the Supreme Court.
The final route of appeal would lie with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) if his legal team can prove an Article 3 breach.
Assuming Mr Assange loses the case, his team would probably apply for an urgent injunction to the High Court to temporarily prevent him from being extradited during the appeal, then apply for an expedited hearing so his case is heard as quickly as possible.