15 ms·

Swedish court upholds arrest warrant for Julian Assange

43 points by mvanvoorden 12y ago

porsupah 12y ago
There's very good coverage of the hearing over on Falkvinge's site, including a full translation of the arguments presented by the defense and prosecution, as it happened: http://falkvinge.net/2014/07/16/live-detention-lift-hearings-for-assange-stockholm-district-court/ http://falkvinge.net/2014/07/16/live-detention-lift-hearings...
adityab 12y ago
> A Swedish court has ruled that an arrest warrant against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on charges of sexual assault will stay in place. This article uses certain terms very loosely and irresponsibly. No "charges" have been brought against Assange (yet). The prosecution claims to want to question him, but has turned down offers to do so in the embassy or remotely. Indeed, this FUD-like assertion about "charges" keeps floating about so much that the Wikipedia article about the case has an explict section[1] about that. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#No_charges_exist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_A...
- rmc 12y ago
  The UK courts have already agreed that he has been equivalent of arrested-in-the-UK sense. That's how Swedish law works.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    "arrested-in-the-UK sense" also does not imply any charges have been made, and is frequently used when there is no intent of bringing any charges.
- notahacker 12y ago
  The FUD-like assertion about "the prosecution claims to want to question him, but has turned down offers to do so..." keeps floating about so much that the paragraph immediately below in that very same Wikipedia article expresses the actual position of the prosecution, which is that (i) Swedish legal procedures require he is brought into custody and interrogated in custody before the charge is formally made (ii) the arrest warrant is issued in order to allow them the opportunity to charge him with sexual offences and not simply because they "want to question him" (iii) based on information they presently have he will be charged once he ceases evading arrest, unless he provides them with a very good reason not to. "Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries"
  - adityab 12y ago
    > expresses the actual position of the prosecution, which is that (i) Swedish legal procedures require he is brought into custody and interrogated in custody before the charge is formally made My statement that the prosecution has refused offers to question him by other easy means is entirely factual and not FUD-like. Perhaps I should not have used that acronym, it triggers too many strong reactions. ;-) You yourself quote from the Wikipedia article that the "brought into custody" requirement is, in fact, not a requirement of the Swedish legal procedures, but is the position of the prosecution. The legality of said requirement/interpretation is, among other things, up for debate in this proceeding. > (ii) the arrest warrant is issued in order to allow them the opportunity to charge him with sexual offences and not simply because they "want to question him" In Swedish law, "charges can be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning". Questioning him is a prerequisite to placing charges. Of course they want to charge him, but that is another matter. They need to jump through the proper hoops. >(iii) based on information they presently have he will be charged once he ceases evading arrest, unless he provides them with a very good reason not to. Wrong (AFAIK). 1. A whole round of questioning and presentation of reasons has to be done before you can charge someone. I am not an lawyer, but this is what Swedish law requires, apparently. The burden of reasonable suspicion is on the Prosecution, not the Defense. 2. It is yet to be decided, legally speaking, if Assange has been evading arrest. One argument presented by the Defense is that the entire holed-up-in-the-embassy-for-years situation is equivalent to house arrest. Disclaimer: IANAL.
    - notahacker 12y ago
      The technicalities are many and complex, and Assange's legal team has appealed the extradition order on a wide range of technicalities and thus far failed in all of them. But it's beyond dispute that the prosecution claims to want a lot more than mere questions, and it's Assange who has refused to remain in a position which allows for the usual legal process to run its course. The wider question is whether it is more accurate to claim that Assange has not yet been formally charged with the offences (or had the charges thrown out) (i) because the Swedish prosecution is refusing requests or (ii) because Assange did not respond to attempts by the prosecution to contact him whilst in Sweden (as verified by his own legal representatives), left Sweden on the day an arrest warrant was issued, and then following arrest and bail in the UK took the unusual option of relocating himself outside the reaches of the British police whilst fighting the extradition order in the courts. I would suggest it's near impossible to believe the former factor is the primary reason no formal decision on charges has been made, even if one feels the rape allegations are extremely unlikely to be true and Assange has good reason to be afraid.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Is that because the charges are weak, or because under the Swedish system, prosecutors are required to confront him in person before filing charges? I'm not a lawyer, let alone a Swedish one, but my understanding is that it's the latter.
  - adityab 12y ago
    The latter, yes.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      Oh, I'm sorry. I saw "FUD" and my brain turned off. I think I made the exact same point you made. Next time I'll read more carefully!
vidarh 12y ago
That's hardly surprising, given how Swedish courts have no problems with keeping people in prison pending judgement in cases like this. If they see that as justified, then self-imposed "house arrest" in an embassy is hardly going to strike them as particularly onerous. What's more interesting is whether or not his lawyers manages to get anywhere with their demand for access to the remaining prosecution evidence. E.g. the SMS's the women sent, for example, which Assange's lawyers have previously been allowed to see but not get copies of.
teddyh 12y ago
Official verdict from the Stockholm District Court, in English: http://domstol.se/Om-Sveriges-Domstolar/Sveriges-Domstolars-pressrum/Nyheter-och-pressmeddelanden/Beslut-i-fraga-om-haktning-i-utevaro--Decision-concering-a-detention-order/ http://domstol.se/Om-Sveriges-Domstolar/Sveriges-Domstolars-...
buckfitchesget 12y ago
shit like this is exacerbating shit like this http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasperhamill/2014/07/15/british-secret-agents-no-more-skilled-than-an-average-hacker/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasperhamill/2014/07/15/british-... lolol
tzs 12y ago
Assume he were tried and convicted of the alleged crimes. What penalty would he be facing?
- vidarh 12y ago
  If not given any "special" treatment, the most he'd likely face would be a year or two at most in a low security prison. This is one of the reasons I believe that whether or not he is guilty, he actually himself strongly believe there's something fishy going on. If he believed nothing else was going on, then it would make very little sense for him to avoid the charges: Chances of being convicted in cases like these are tiny, and if convicted, the punishment in Sweden would be very light. He's likely to suffer more cooped up in that embassy than if convicted in Sweden. Of course, if he genuinely believes something is fishy does not mean there has to be. And even if there is something fishy, it doesn't need to be US involvement - it could just as well be the prosecutor wanting to push her own agenda.
- bitJericho 12y ago
  Treason? The death penalty.
  - rmc 12y ago
    You know the death penalty is illegal in EU (etc.)? In fact, no EU/Council of Europe country can extradite someone for a crime where death penalty is an option. If the USA were to declare he is wanted only for a crime that carries the death penalty, it would be great for Assange. He could walk around the EU without any risk of extradition.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      This would be more convincing if Sweden had not been caught out illegally cooperating with CIA renditions - in one instance handing two Egyptian political asylum seekers over to CIA, knowing they'd be handed over to Mubarak for torture. They insisted it had stopped. Only Wikileaks documents revealed the US ambassador was called in years later because Swedish military intelligence had just caught CIA, assisted by Swedish ground crew, carrying out further illegal rendition flights via Swedish airports. I don't that's a likely scenario for Assange - he's too well known, and Europe and Sweden would "have to" cause a massive stink if he was illegally abducted that way - it'd be a diplomatic nightmare. But in general, if concerned about being handed over to the US, Sweden would be pretty low on the list of countries I'd want to go to.
belorn 12y ago
When ever we read new articles about Sweden vs Assange, we have to keep in mind that the wishes of the two women in the dcase is not represented by any side. This does make this case a bit strange. The woman in this case went to the police in order to ask them if it was possible to force a person to take a HIV test. While there she explain how she was half-asleep when Assange initiated un-safe sex, and when she heard about his other sexual partners a few days later she became concerned. When she contacted Assange about a HIV test, he brushed the concept off, which is why she were there at the police station asking them for help. The result was by all reports (ie news papers), not what she wanted. They charged Assange for rape, which resulted in that she broke of any communication with the police and prosecutor, and refused to sign the written report from the police station. Now, criminal case do not need that the woman agree with the charges, but it makes for a strange case. It also makes one ask for whose benefit this case is all for. All the men and women who is half-asleep when initiated by sex from a partner they previously that day/night had sex with?
- parfe 12y ago
  >It also makes one ask for whose benefit this case is all for Other people Assange, or others in society, may want to violate without a condom for his own pleasure at the expense of his partner's well being. >All the men and women who is half-asleep when initiated by sex from a partner they previously that day/night had sex with? As per the accusation, Assange purposely penetrated her without using a condom against her wishes while she slept. Previous sex isn't permission for future sex. And certainly not unprotected sex because he doesn't like condoms but managed to catch her with her guard down.
  - rmc 12y ago
    This isn't only some funny "sex without a condom" case. He's charged with holding a woman down and having sex with her http://jackofkent.com/2012/09/the-detail-of-the-accusations-against-assange/ http://jackofkent.com/2012/09/the-detail-of-the-accusations-...
    - higherpurpose 12y ago
jamespo 12y ago
Once again people should read http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...

43 points by mvanvoorden 12y ago

There's very good coverage of the hearing over on Falkvinge's site, including a full translation of the arguments presented by the defense and prosecution, as it happened: http://falkvinge.net/2014/07/16/live-detention-lift-hearings-for-assange-stockholm-district-court/ http://falkvinge.net/2014/07/16/live-detention-lift-hearings...

adityab 12y ago

> A Swedish court has ruled that an arrest warrant against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on charges of sexual assault will stay in place. This article uses certain terms very loosely and irresponsibly. No "charges" have been brought against Assange (yet). The prosecution claims to want to question him, but has turned down offers to do so in the embassy or remotely. Indeed, this FUD-like assertion about "charges" keeps floating about so much that the Wikipedia article about the case has an explict section[1] about that. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#No_charges_exist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_A...

rmc 12y ago
The UK courts have already agreed that he has been equivalent of arrested-in-the-UK sense. That's how Swedish law works.
- vidarh 12y ago
  "arrested-in-the-UK sense" also does not imply any charges have been made, and is frequently used when there is no intent of bringing any charges.
notahacker 12y ago
The FUD-like assertion about "the prosecution claims to want to question him, but has turned down offers to do so..." keeps floating about so much that the paragraph immediately below in that very same Wikipedia article expresses the actual position of the prosecution, which is that (i) Swedish legal procedures require he is brought into custody and interrogated in custody before the charge is formally made (ii) the arrest warrant is issued in order to allow them the opportunity to charge him with sexual offences and not simply because they "want to question him" (iii) based on information they presently have he will be charged once he ceases evading arrest, unless he provides them with a very good reason not to. "Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries"
- adityab 12y ago
  > expresses the actual position of the prosecution, which is that (i) Swedish legal procedures require he is brought into custody and interrogated in custody before the charge is formally made My statement that the prosecution has refused offers to question him by other easy means is entirely factual and not FUD-like. Perhaps I should not have used that acronym, it triggers too many strong reactions. ;-) You yourself quote from the Wikipedia article that the "brought into custody" requirement is, in fact, not a requirement of the Swedish legal procedures, but is the position of the prosecution. The legality of said requirement/interpretation is, among other things, up for debate in this proceeding. > (ii) the arrest warrant is issued in order to allow them the opportunity to charge him with sexual offences and not simply because they "want to question him" In Swedish law, "charges can be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning". Questioning him is a prerequisite to placing charges. Of course they want to charge him, but that is another matter. They need to jump through the proper hoops. >(iii) based on information they presently have he will be charged once he ceases evading arrest, unless he provides them with a very good reason not to. Wrong (AFAIK). 1. A whole round of questioning and presentation of reasons has to be done before you can charge someone. I am not an lawyer, but this is what Swedish law requires, apparently. The burden of reasonable suspicion is on the Prosecution, not the Defense. 2. It is yet to be decided, legally speaking, if Assange has been evading arrest. One argument presented by the Defense is that the entire holed-up-in-the-embassy-for-years situation is equivalent to house arrest. Disclaimer: IANAL.
  - notahacker 12y ago
    The technicalities are many and complex, and Assange's legal team has appealed the extradition order on a wide range of technicalities and thus far failed in all of them. But it's beyond dispute that the prosecution claims to want a lot more than mere questions, and it's Assange who has refused to remain in a position which allows for the usual legal process to run its course. The wider question is whether it is more accurate to claim that Assange has not yet been formally charged with the offences (or had the charges thrown out) (i) because the Swedish prosecution is refusing requests or (ii) because Assange did not respond to attempts by the prosecution to contact him whilst in Sweden (as verified by his own legal representatives), left Sweden on the day an arrest warrant was issued, and then following arrest and bail in the UK took the unusual option of relocating himself outside the reaches of the British police whilst fighting the extradition order in the courts. I would suggest it's near impossible to believe the former factor is the primary reason no formal decision on charges has been made, even if one feels the rape allegations are extremely unlikely to be true and Assange has good reason to be afraid.
tptacek 12y ago
Is that because the charges are weak, or because under the Swedish system, prosecutors are required to confront him in person before filing charges? I'm not a lawyer, let alone a Swedish one, but my understanding is that it's the latter.
- adityab 12y ago
  The latter, yes.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Oh, I'm sorry. I saw "FUD" and my brain turned off. I think I made the exact same point you made. Next time I'll read more carefully!

vidarh 12y ago

That's hardly surprising, given how Swedish courts have no problems with keeping people in prison pending judgement in cases like this. If they see that as justified, then self-imposed "house arrest" in an embassy is hardly going to strike them as particularly onerous. What's more interesting is whether or not his lawyers manages to get anywhere with their demand for access to the remaining prosecution evidence. E.g. the SMS's the women sent, for example, which Assange's lawyers have previously been allowed to see but not get copies of.

teddyh 12y ago

Official verdict from the Stockholm District Court, in English: http://domstol.se/Om-Sveriges-Domstolar/Sveriges-Domstolars-pressrum/Nyheter-och-pressmeddelanden/Beslut-i-fraga-om-haktning-i-utevaro--Decision-concering-a-detention-order/ http://domstol.se/Om-Sveriges-Domstolar/Sveriges-Domstolars-...

buckfitchesget 12y ago

shit like this is exacerbating shit like this http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasperhamill/2014/07/15/british-secret-agents-no-more-skilled-than-an-average-hacker/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasperhamill/2014/07/15/british-... lolol

tzs 12y ago

Assume he were tried and convicted of the alleged crimes. What penalty would he be facing?

vidarh 12y ago
If not given any "special" treatment, the most he'd likely face would be a year or two at most in a low security prison. This is one of the reasons I believe that whether or not he is guilty, he actually himself strongly believe there's something fishy going on. If he believed nothing else was going on, then it would make very little sense for him to avoid the charges: Chances of being convicted in cases like these are tiny, and if convicted, the punishment in Sweden would be very light. He's likely to suffer more cooped up in that embassy than if convicted in Sweden. Of course, if he genuinely believes something is fishy does not mean there has to be. And even if there is something fishy, it doesn't need to be US involvement - it could just as well be the prosecutor wanting to push her own agenda.
bitJericho 12y ago
Treason? The death penalty.
- rmc 12y ago
  You know the death penalty is illegal in EU (etc.)? In fact, no EU/Council of Europe country can extradite someone for a crime where death penalty is an option. If the USA were to declare he is wanted only for a crime that carries the death penalty, it would be great for Assange. He could walk around the EU without any risk of extradition.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    This would be more convincing if Sweden had not been caught out illegally cooperating with CIA renditions - in one instance handing two Egyptian political asylum seekers over to CIA, knowing they'd be handed over to Mubarak for torture. They insisted it had stopped. Only Wikileaks documents revealed the US ambassador was called in years later because Swedish military intelligence had just caught CIA, assisted by Swedish ground crew, carrying out further illegal rendition flights via Swedish airports. I don't that's a likely scenario for Assange - he's too well known, and Europe and Sweden would "have to" cause a massive stink if he was illegally abducted that way - it'd be a diplomatic nightmare. But in general, if concerned about being handed over to the US, Sweden would be pretty low on the list of countries I'd want to go to.

belorn 12y ago

When ever we read new articles about Sweden vs Assange, we have to keep in mind that the wishes of the two women in the dcase is not represented by any side. This does make this case a bit strange. The woman in this case went to the police in order to ask them if it was possible to force a person to take a HIV test. While there she explain how she was half-asleep when Assange initiated un-safe sex, and when she heard about his other sexual partners a few days later she became concerned. When she contacted Assange about a HIV test, he brushed the concept off, which is why she were there at the police station asking them for help. The result was by all reports (ie news papers), not what she wanted. They charged Assange for rape, which resulted in that she broke of any communication with the police and prosecutor, and refused to sign the written report from the police station. Now, criminal case do not need that the woman agree with the charges, but it makes for a strange case. It also makes one ask for whose benefit this case is all for. All the men and women who is half-asleep when initiated by sex from a partner they previously that day/night had sex with?

parfe 12y ago
>It also makes one ask for whose benefit this case is all for Other people Assange, or others in society, may want to violate without a condom for his own pleasure at the expense of his partner's well being. >All the men and women who is half-asleep when initiated by sex from a partner they previously that day/night had sex with? As per the accusation, Assange purposely penetrated her without using a condom against her wishes while she slept. Previous sex isn't permission for future sex. And certainly not unprotected sex because he doesn't like condoms but managed to catch her with her guard down.
- rmc 12y ago
  This isn't only some funny "sex without a condom" case. He's charged with holding a woman down and having sex with her http://jackofkent.com/2012/09/the-detail-of-the-accusations-against-assange/ http://jackofkent.com/2012/09/the-detail-of-the-accusations-...
  - higherpurpose 12y ago

jamespo 12y ago

Once again people should read http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-...