4 ms·

That Sweden recognise his asylum claim in Ecuador as valid, which the Swedish prosecutor does not have the legal authority to do. There is a good writeup from

by cmdkeen 11y ago

That Sweden recognise his asylum claim in Ecuador as valid, which the Swedish prosecutor does not have the legal authority to do. There is a good writeup from a British legal blogger at http://jackofkent.com/2015/08/assange-the-law-of-limitation-and-the-next-eight-days/ http://jackofkent.com/2015/08/assange-the-law-of-limitation-... It's worth picking out as well that Assange faces British legal issues from breaching his bail conditions. The bail set during his very lengthy legal process which validated the Swedish process as just. The British legal system isn't perfect but when you're a high profile individual with access to plenty of fine legal minds it's about as good as you're going to get.

celticninja 11y ago
actually for failing to adhere to his bail conditions his surety is forefit however there are unlikely to be any other significant effects of this action.
andyjohnson0 11y ago
The extradition hearing took three days, which is hardly a "very lengthy process". And it didn't validate the Swedish judicial process because that isn't its function. An EAW extradition hearing in the UK is merely to establish that an extraditable offence is alleged, that the party requesting the extradition has standing, and that there are no Human Rights Act issues [1]. Persons facing extradition on an EAW don't get to argue about the merits of the allegations they're facing: that happens when they arrive in the extraditing country. [1] https://www.gov.uk/extradition-processes-and-review https://www.gov.uk/extradition-processes-and-review
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  Except many of the claims his supporters make, including in this thread, are that what he allegedly did aren't actually crimes. The UK court system has repeatedly held that they are analogous to UK sexual offences. Others have argued that the Swedish prosecutor can't issue a warrant, again the Supreme Court decided otherwise. Given the scope of the UK Human Rights Act, along with the argued abuse of process claims, I'm not quite sure what objections to the extraditions don't come under a heading that the court would look at. The problem for Assange is that "but the Americans might try to extradite me, and the Swedish and British courts might suddenly become supine" isn't a valid reason to not be extradited.
  - pfg 11y ago
    I imagine the UK courts would hold that a rape charge in the UK is similar to a rape charge in Sweden. That makes sense. However, there's a difference between acknowledging that and ruling on whether the allegations have merit. They specifically didn't look at anything other than the allegations made on the European Arrest Warrant. From the High Court decision: > In respect of each offence, Mr Assange contended that the court should examine the underlying material from the prosecution file... [W]hat was provided contained the principal statements of the complainants and other material which made it obvious that the conduct of which he was accused was not fairly and accurately described in the EAW. [...] > In our view, it is not apposite to take into account the material in the prosecution file. [...]
    - rmc 11y ago
      So he wanted to be tried in the UK instead of Sweden?
      - pfg 11y ago
        That's not my point. It was implied that the High Court decision somehow validated the charges against Assange, while all they did was confirm that, yes, the UK do have laws against rape.
    - knodi123 11y ago
      > I imagine the UK courts would hold that a rape charge in the UK is similar to a rape charge in Sweden. Although to be clear, there are no rape charges involved in the Assange case. The crime he is accused of in Sweden is not even illegal in some countries.
      - andyjohnson0 11y ago
        The BBC [1][2] and Guardian [3] are describing the remaining charge as rape. [1] quotes the Swedish prosecutor (in 2010): "There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed," she says in a statement. "Considering information available at present, my judgement is that the classification of the crime is rape." Wikipedia [4] gives the Swedish term as "våldtäkt", which Google translates as "Rape": "On 18 November 2010, the Stockholm District Court ordered Assange detained in absentia, on request by prosecutor Marianne Ny. As basis for the ruling, the court stated Julian Assange to be suspected on reasonable grounds to have committed rape (våldtäkt), unlawful coercion (olaga tvång), and three cases of sexuellt ofredande — which has been variously translated as "sexual molestation", "sexual assault", "sexual misconduct", "sexual annoyance", "sexual unfreedom", "sexual misdemeanour", and "sexual harassment" [3] (The above, to be clear, are allegations). [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33907874 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33907874 [3] http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/13/julian-assange-cases-dropped-but-rape-claim-investigation-continues http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/13/julian-assange-... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Arrest_warrant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
- rmc 11y ago
  He went all the way up to the UK Supreme Court.
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> That Sweden recognise his asylum claim in Ecuador as valid, which the Swedish prosecutor does not have the legal authority to do. I wonder what recognizing that asylum would do to Sweden's ability to prosecute. If Assange (or Ecuador) is, in effect, saying "you can talk to him about it, but you can't prosecute him for it", that's a pretty cheap trick to avoid the charge. But even if it's only talking about whether it's valid for Assange to claim asylum to avoid extradition to the US, why should Sweden have to agree to that before investigating a sexual assault accusation?

by cmdkeen 11y ago

celticninja 11y ago

actually for failing to adhere to his bail conditions his surety is forefit however there are unlikely to be any other significant effects of this action.

andyjohnson0 11y ago

The extradition hearing took three days, which is hardly a "very lengthy process". And it didn't validate the Swedish judicial process because that isn't its function. An EAW extradition hearing in the UK is merely to establish that an extraditable offence is alleged, that the party requesting the extradition has standing, and that there are no Human Rights Act issues [1]. Persons facing extradition on an EAW don't get to argue about the merits of the allegations they're facing: that happens when they arrive in the extraditing country. [1] https://www.gov.uk/extradition-processes-and-review https://www.gov.uk/extradition-processes-and-review

cmdkeen 11y ago
Except many of the claims his supporters make, including in this thread, are that what he allegedly did aren't actually crimes. The UK court system has repeatedly held that they are analogous to UK sexual offences. Others have argued that the Swedish prosecutor can't issue a warrant, again the Supreme Court decided otherwise. Given the scope of the UK Human Rights Act, along with the argued abuse of process claims, I'm not quite sure what objections to the extraditions don't come under a heading that the court would look at. The problem for Assange is that "but the Americans might try to extradite me, and the Swedish and British courts might suddenly become supine" isn't a valid reason to not be extradited.
- pfg 11y ago
  I imagine the UK courts would hold that a rape charge in the UK is similar to a rape charge in Sweden. That makes sense. However, there's a difference between acknowledging that and ruling on whether the allegations have merit. They specifically didn't look at anything other than the allegations made on the European Arrest Warrant. From the High Court decision: > In respect of each offence, Mr Assange contended that the court should examine the underlying material from the prosecution file... [W]hat was provided contained the principal statements of the complainants and other material which made it obvious that the conduct of which he was accused was not fairly and accurately described in the EAW. [...] > In our view, it is not apposite to take into account the material in the prosecution file. [...]
  - rmc 11y ago
    So he wanted to be tried in the UK instead of Sweden?
    - pfg 11y ago
      That's not my point. It was implied that the High Court decision somehow validated the charges against Assange, while all they did was confirm that, yes, the UK do have laws against rape.
  - knodi123 11y ago
    > I imagine the UK courts would hold that a rape charge in the UK is similar to a rape charge in Sweden. Although to be clear, there are no rape charges involved in the Assange case. The crime he is accused of in Sweden is not even illegal in some countries.
    - andyjohnson0 11y ago
      The BBC [1][2] and Guardian [3] are describing the remaining charge as rape. [1] quotes the Swedish prosecutor (in 2010): "There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed," she says in a statement. "Considering information available at present, my judgement is that the classification of the crime is rape." Wikipedia [4] gives the Swedish term as "våldtäkt", which Google translates as "Rape": "On 18 November 2010, the Stockholm District Court ordered Assange detained in absentia, on request by prosecutor Marianne Ny. As basis for the ruling, the court stated Julian Assange to be suspected on reasonable grounds to have committed rape (våldtäkt), unlawful coercion (olaga tvång), and three cases of sexuellt ofredande — which has been variously translated as "sexual molestation", "sexual assault", "sexual misconduct", "sexual annoyance", "sexual unfreedom", "sexual misdemeanour", and "sexual harassment" [3] (The above, to be clear, are allegations). [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33907874 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33907874 [3] http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/13/julian-assange-cases-dropped-but-rape-claim-investigation-continues http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/13/julian-assange-... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Arrest_warrant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
rmc 11y ago
He went all the way up to the UK Supreme Court.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

> That Sweden recognise his asylum claim in Ecuador as valid, which the Swedish prosecutor does not have the legal authority to do. I wonder what recognizing that asylum would do to Sweden's ability to prosecute. If Assange (or Ecuador) is, in effect, saying "you can talk to him about it, but you can't prosecute him for it", that's a pretty cheap trick to avoid the charge. But even if it's only talking about whether it's valid for Assange to claim asylum to avoid extradition to the US, why should Sweden have to agree to that before investigating a sexual assault accusation?