4 ms·

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 repeated

by 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_...
    - kiiski 11y ago
      A small correction to what you said, the allegations (that you quoted) were lowered after Assange appealed (but the rape still remains, although as a "lesser degree"). Your [4]: > The decision was appealed by Assange on 22 November to the Svea Court of Appeal, which two days later upheld the warrant but lowered it to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation rather than three.
    - 11y ago
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  It would be rather helpful if you sourced your quotes. The Queen's Bench ruling (which does contain the apposite phrase in para 71) in http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_11_assange.pdf http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_11_assange.... Except that if you'd read further (or not taken the Wikileaks edited highlights) the court immediately goes on to say "Nonethless, as the material was put before us de bene esse, we will express our view on what difference it would have made if we have taken it into account in determining whether the description of the conduct was fair and accurate." The court did specifically look at whether the offences alleged would constitute crimes in the UK for instance in para 96: "In our view, therefore, the description was fair and accurate; the offence was, for the reasons we have given an offence under the law of England and Wales; the requirement of dual criminality was satisfied". On the rape question in para 109: "In our view on this basis what was described in the EAW was rape." it even goes on "A requirement of proof of coercion, if that is what Swedish law requires, is a more onerous test for the prosecution to satisfy than the test for consent in the 2003 Act". So the court went "you showed us this, we don't need it but we're going to point out how it doesn't help your case anyway". Assange got spanked by the British Courts, repeatedly, who were convinced that he had to go to Sweden to assist in the investigation into serious offences. Despite the best efforts of some very experienced and serious lawyers no Human Rights angle was found to stop it either.

by cmdkeen 11y ago

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_...
  - kiiski 11y ago
    A small correction to what you said, the allegations (that you quoted) were lowered after Assange appealed (but the rape still remains, although as a "lesser degree"). Your [4]: > The decision was appealed by Assange on 22 November to the Svea Court of Appeal, which two days later upheld the warrant but lowered it to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation rather than three.
  - 11y ago
cmdkeen 11y ago
It would be rather helpful if you sourced your quotes. The Queen's Bench ruling (which does contain the apposite phrase in para 71) in http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_11_assange.pdf http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_11_assange.... Except that if you'd read further (or not taken the Wikileaks edited highlights) the court immediately goes on to say "Nonethless, as the material was put before us de bene esse, we will express our view on what difference it would have made if we have taken it into account in determining whether the description of the conduct was fair and accurate." The court did specifically look at whether the offences alleged would constitute crimes in the UK for instance in para 96: "In our view, therefore, the description was fair and accurate; the offence was, for the reasons we have given an offence under the law of England and Wales; the requirement of dual criminality was satisfied". On the rape question in para 109: "In our view on this basis what was described in the EAW was rape." it even goes on "A requirement of proof of coercion, if that is what Swedish law requires, is a more onerous test for the prosecution to satisfy than the test for consent in the 2003 Act". So the court went "you showed us this, we don't need it but we're going to point out how it doesn't help your case anyway". Assange got spanked by the British Courts, repeatedly, who were convinced that he had to go to Sweden to assist in the investigation into serious offences. Despite the best efforts of some very experienced and serious lawyers no Human Rights angle was found to stop it either.