2 ms·

English language opinion: http://bit.ly/2HScFSY http://bit.ly/2HScFSY This seems to be more of a minor procedural issue rather than anything meaningful. The co

English language opinion: http://bit.ly/2HScFSY http://bit.ly/2HScFSY This seems to be more of a minor procedural issue rather than anything meaningful. The court agrees there is probable cause and a flight risk, but denied “detention in absentia” because he’s already in custody. Quote: The Court has, at a hearing today, decided that there is probable cause for the suspicion of rape, less serious incident, and that there is a risk that Julian Assange will fail to appear or in some other way avoid participation in the investigation and the following proceedings. The Court has, however, found that a detention order would not be in accordance with the principle of proportionality. Since Julian Assange is serving a prison sentence the public prosecutor can proceed with the preliminary investigation by issuing a European Investigation Order.

vidarh 7y ago
It is quite interesting though, given how loudly the prosecutor originally insisted he absolutely had to be brought to Sweden before they could proceed, to now have a judge confirming that the investigation does not require him to be present in Sweden (yes, I realize that it is in part because he is in custody and so it can be ensured he remains available, so the situations are not exactly the same, but the prosecutor did not argue that he needed to remain in custody, but specifically that he needed to be brought to Sweden). This to me suggest that irrespective of whether or not Assange is guilty, the prosecutor mishandled the cases - parts of the charges had to be dropped because of the statute of limitations because they failed to act while he was in custody in the UK while arguing over something a Swedish judge has now said is not a prerequisite to continuing investigation.
- lostmyoldone 7y ago
  It was mishandled from day one when the prosecutors office acknowledged that Assange was under investigation, this on it's own was - while not strictly illegal - something essentially unheard of in Sweden, especially for a case involving a possible rape charge. It was highly irregular, and considering how much of police and prosecutor actions in Sweden are based on professional ethics, rather then laws themselves, the level of irregular behavior clearly stands out in this case, as it also did in the pirate bay case, but that's a story for another time. Yes, we really should put more of the rules for police and prosecution into law, there's too much leeway as it is today. Back to the topic at hand. Rape cases are usually not public, they almost alwaya are played out without anyone except legal teams, judge, prosecutor, lay judges present. Thus since the trial is in private, and an exoneration in court is then less 'visible' than the public "accusation" cause by naming the suspect, the view is generally that the courts and prosecution should not explicitly name people in the kind of cases you expect to be held in that setting, or in generall - cases where publicly naming suspects can cause undue harm to the suspected regardless of the veracity of the accusations. It was as far as I can recall still unusual for any accused to be publicly named, much less so for cases expected to be tried behind locked doors. Usually public naming of suspects only happened if the suspect was deemed to be violent enough that the public needed to be warned.

vidarh 7y ago

It is quite interesting though, given how loudly the prosecutor originally insisted he absolutely had to be brought to Sweden before they could proceed, to now have a judge confirming that the investigation does not require him to be present in Sweden (yes, I realize that it is in part because he is in custody and so it can be ensured he remains available, so the situations are not exactly the same, but the prosecutor did not argue that he needed to remain in custody, but specifically that he needed to be brought to Sweden). This to me suggest that irrespective of whether or not Assange is guilty, the prosecutor mishandled the cases - parts of the charges had to be dropped because of the statute of limitations because they failed to act while he was in custody in the UK while arguing over something a Swedish judge has now said is not a prerequisite to continuing investigation.

lostmyoldone 7y ago
It was mishandled from day one when the prosecutors office acknowledged that Assange was under investigation, this on it's own was - while not strictly illegal - something essentially unheard of in Sweden, especially for a case involving a possible rape charge. It was highly irregular, and considering how much of police and prosecutor actions in Sweden are based on professional ethics, rather then laws themselves, the level of irregular behavior clearly stands out in this case, as it also did in the pirate bay case, but that's a story for another time. Yes, we really should put more of the rules for police and prosecution into law, there's too much leeway as it is today. Back to the topic at hand. Rape cases are usually not public, they almost alwaya are played out without anyone except legal teams, judge, prosecutor, lay judges present. Thus since the trial is in private, and an exoneration in court is then less 'visible' than the public "accusation" cause by naming the suspect, the view is generally that the courts and prosecution should not explicitly name people in the kind of cases you expect to be held in that setting, or in generall - cases where publicly naming suspects can cause undue harm to the suspected regardless of the veracity of the accusations. It was as far as I can recall still unusual for any accused to be publicly named, much less so for cases expected to be tried behind locked doors. Usually public naming of suspects only happened if the suspect was deemed to be violent enough that the public needed to be warned.