back to article Assange fights extradition in court

Julian Assange's lawyers are in court now to fight his extradition to Sweden by arguing that prosecutors have failed to follow correct procedures. Swedish authorities want to question Assange in relation to alleged sex offences. But his defence solicitors claim that prosecutors must charge him with an offence, and therefore …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

FAIL

Double standards much?

"[Assange claims] his privacy rights have been breached because extracts of the prosecution file have been made available to the media"

Wait.. what?

4
18

Government / Corporate privacy != Individual's privacy.

It's quite easy really.

20
2
Silver badge

indeed

its a funny thing the law.

1
0
FAIL

RE:

No double standards, government documents are not the same as citizen's documents.

12
2

Re: Double standards much?

I, as an a private citizen, have the right to privacy. My private documents, my home, my possessions, should be safe from unwarranted inspection or seizure by anybody I do not wish to to do such.

Government bodies, as elected representatives of the people, have no right to privacy whatsoever *when performing the duties bestowed upon them*. They must demonstrate beyond any doubt that they are accurately, and to the best of their ability, performing the functions they are expected to, and they should be accountable to those who put them in that position via accountability through public inspection of the documentation of their work.

When they are private citizens, they have the same rights as any of us. When they are politicking, they should be transparent and open in their actions and words.

I hope that's cleared that up for you.

22
3
Silver badge

But the leaked documents are (apparently) from the Swedish Prosecutor

So they *are* government documents. The fact that they may contain information relating to an identifiable individual is not something that appears to have been much concern to Mr Assange in the past.

8
6
Silver badge
Grenade

@Gerardo Korndorffer

Your argument fails on so many different levels.

First, Assange believes and argues for complete transparency, he doesn't make a distinction. After all a corporation isn't the government and if its a private corporation, should they not have the same rights to privacy as an individual?

So by your logic, Wikileaks should treat leaks about individuals as off limits, right? Then a private corporation, like a private bank, should also be off limits.

Now if you want to argue that the banks have allegedly broken the law therefore, private or not, they are fair game... need I remind you that Assange has allegedly committed rape, and thus he too is not exempt from having his dirty laundry aired.

Then there's the issue of a private citizen versus a public figure. Assange has made himself a public figure. So just like Lindsay Lohan's latest jewelry hiest, Assange is fair game for the press.

2
12

Well actually this has been much concern

to Mr. Assange and to Wikileaks, that is why they published the US Cables via established Media NYT, Grauniad, DER SPIEGEL ...

Those media outlets actually redacted the cables that were published - a few thousand up to now out of a quarter million obtained. (And not several hundred thousand published, as some careless authors are wont to write)

In Germany there has been one career very publicly ended, a young careerist talked to much to our friends and your allies, thereby breaching confidentiality - ironic, is it not, that he fell himself victim to a breach of confidentiality.

To my knowledge, Mr. Gates (who, you will agree, is in a position to know) has said that there has not yet been an instance of revenge against informers because of Assange's publications in Afghanistan. If you know better, please share.

Apart from Schadenfreude, I fail to see any merit in your argument that Assange has forfeitet his right to privacy in Sweden because he helped publish documets that somewhat embarrassed the US.

0
0
Thumb Up

Re: Double standards much?

""[Assange claims] his privacy rights have been breached because extracts of the prosecution file have been made available to the media"

Wait.. what?"

More than that, the leaked copies are of documents faxed from his Swedish defender to his UK defender, and the leaked documents are as seen from the UK defender's perspective. That is, the covering letter to these documents is from the Swedish to the English defender. That is, the UK defender either has bad security or leaked the documents to muddy the water.

Experienced leakers ought to know better than to betray identifying material. It is a basic principle of intelligence. I find myself wondering about those Afghan informants, whose GPS co-ordinates were left in leaked material. It's the same sort of basic error, and it is consistent with a sloppy operation. Assange appears to have shot himself in the foot. Then there is the childish, circular logic employed by his UK defence (percolating down to this forum). If there is anything like justice in the UK this man is going to Sweden, tomorrow.

2
2
Happy

Re: Re: Double standards much?

"I, as an a private citizen, have the right to privacy. My private documents, my home, my possessions, should be safe from unwarranted inspection or seizure by anybody I do not wish to to do such.

The leaked documents have identification material on them; they are copies of a fax sent from his Swedish to his UK defender. Someone on the receiving side made a basic security error and gave away the source of this information. I don't think he deserves any sympathy, only ridicule. It's the same sort of sloppiness that resulted in the GPS co-ordinates of Afghan informants being left in leaked material. Foot. Shot. His own.

2
2

@Scorchio!!

>>"The leaked documents have identification material on them; they are copies of a fax sent from his Swedish to his UK defender. Someone on the receiving side made a basic security error and gave away the source of this information."

If it *is* anything to do with his UK legal team, if they're claiming the leaks are prejudicial to his case, I'd be interested to see what action will be taken against them, or whether they could be required to say whether or not they gave Julian copies.

0
0

Re: @Scorchio!!

">>"The leaked documents have identification material on them; they are copies of a fax sent from his Swedish to his UK defender. Someone on the receiving side made a basic security error and gave away the source of this information."

If it *is* anything to do with his UK legal team, if they're claiming the leaks are prejudicial to his case, I'd be interested to see what action will be taken against them, or whether they could be required to say whether or not they gave Julian copies."

A good point, but I wouldn't want to hold up the poor fellow's extradition process. Perhaps a punishment for the heads of his legal team? :p

1
2
FAIL

Re: RE:

"No double standards, government documents are not the same as citizen's documents." (Gerardo Korndorffer)

What utter bollocks, what hogwash.

When someone sets themselves up, appoints themselves as a guardian of public morals and attempts to direct or divert public policy down a route they have chosen, they *must* be scrutinised.

Political history is literally littered with the corpses of millions of innocent people whose deaths occurred simply because one or two demagogues decided it should be so. Think for a minute about the Gulag Archipelago, documented by the late Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in which at any given time Stalin had some 10 million prisoners on starvation rations, beatings, torture... ...oh no. Never again.

So, not just Assange, but people standing for election must be carefully scrutinised before standing for election. The self appointed moral Billy Grahams of this world need to be under a microscope.

1
1

Re: RE:

"On Monday, The Guardian published “WIKILEAKS: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy.”

The content of the book infuriated the organization. WikiLeaks said on its Twitter page, “The Guardian book serialization contains malicious libels. We will be taking action.”

[...]

One bombshell included is that WikiLeaks paid Holocaust denier Israel Shamir €2,000 to represent the organization in Russia."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110202/pl_dailycaller/guardianbookassangepaidholocaustdeniertorepresentwikileaks

Pay back is a biotch, right? Clearly this man deserves no privacy at all. Apparently he is riddled with baggage and bad stuff.

0
1
FAIL

No failure in argument

You still confuse what a public institution, a corporation and a citizen are.

A public institution is a shared body that belongs to all of us, in effect we as citizens own it and thus should be entitled to control it.

A corporation is a privately owned body that operates under the rules that we, the citizens, have imposed over it, its right to privacy is at the very best limited to keep it safe from competitor's unfair use. Unfair practices are to be be shown.

A citizen is the basic element of society, the very foundation of it. You as a citizen are the own that should hold the power, goverment officials are your employees, and a corporation operates under your rules. Do not allow them to tell you otherwise.

Unless a citizen is a public figure, a citizen has every right to privacy. If a said citizen is a public figure, then unless the documents show/prove such citizen to have committed an unfair/criminal act such citizen holds every right to privacy. Leaked documents do not prove Assange as a rapist, thus there was ill intent in the leak.

Bear in mind, if you don't know what things really are then you are easily manipulated.

0
1

I don not agree

If the leaked documents actually proved him to be guilty of rape, then I'd say go for it, the rest is just propaganda with ill intent.

0
1
Happy

Re: No failure in argument

No, you confuse the matter; Assange has appointed himself to be the guardian of public morals and of politics. He is no more exempt from public scrutiny than, say, Toni Bler. He can expect intense pressure on him WRT his personal life.

He is a public figure, he is now a matter for public scrutiny. No Platonic noble myths here.

I made my comments in the light of these things, namely that Assange as a public figure who intends to determine or divert public policy has to be scrutinised.

Your arguments are feeble and appear to depend on Assange being a private figure. He is not. From the very first moment he stood behind a lectern and leaked, from the very moment he said that he was going to change things, from then on he put himself into the domain of public life and will be treated as such. It does not matter how much you moan and whine. Cope with it.

As to the leak, the identification material on the leaked fax demonstrate quite clearly that it can only have been leaked from the offices of his UK public defender, to whom the fax was addressed, from his Swedish defender.

Bear in mind that if you do not pay attention to detail you can easily be misled. HTH. HAND.

0
1
Ru
Flame

Awesome stuff

"Lawyers for Swedish prosecutors told the court that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of prosecution, even if specific charges had yet to be made."

I'm not quite sure where to begin. My outrage floweth over. They'll be breaking out the terrorism laws next, no doubt,

16
3
Silver badge

Kind of confused here

"They also question whether the alleged conduct, even if proved, would qualify as an offence in the UK."

Does this mean that if France (say) has a different law to the UK on some issue (and obviously they do, otherwise we would all have the same laws) then you cannot be done under a EAW if you leg it to the UK?

"Assange's defence team also said that his onward rendition from Sweden to the US would breach his human rights."

I was under the impression that in order for this to take place both Sweden *and* the UK would have to agree, so actually it's *harder* then if Assange stays here?

I'm not making any comments about the merits of the case, or anything else, but the former point is genuine: is that true about EAWs? The latter point is more that the defence team appears to be appealing based on dodgy ground. But you have to love the irony of "Assange's lawyers also claim that his privacy rights have been breached", when Assange is head of an organization dedicated to publishing things people want to keep quiet.

And I say again before people downvote this post because my head isn't inserted in Assange's, well, ass: I'm pointing out that the defence lawyers are protesting based on what appears at first blush to be mostly hot air. They should really expand on the you-cannot-extradite-someone-for-questioning angle, and drop the rendition-to-the-US FUD.

5
4
Silver badge

As I understood it...

They are saying you can't be extradited for something which is not an offence in the country being extradited from, not that you can't be extradited for something where the description of the offence is slightly difeerent. For example, You could be extradited from the UK to France for murder, as both countries have laws covering murder, even though they are unlikely to be identical. However, you could not be extyradited to a fictional third country where the wearing of hats is illegal, for wearing a hat in the UK.

That's how I read it anyway.

3
1
Silver badge

That's fine, but...

"However, you could not be extyradited to a fictional third country where the wearing of hats is illegal, for wearing a hat in the UK."

That's fine, and perfectly reasonable, except that the (alleged) hat-wearing took place in the country where hat-wearing is illegal.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

@DavCrav

"I was under the impression that in order for this to take place both Sweden *and* the UK would have to agree, so actually it's *harder* then if Assange stays here?"

Not sure about that. If it was France -> Sweden -> US then he might stand more chance because France doesn't have the Extradition Act 2003, which contains provision for the US to accuse someone of a crime against US law and the UK to require *no proof at all* before surrending the accused.

"But his defence solicitors claim that prosecutors must charge him with an offence and therefore disclose the evidence against him, in order to qualify for extradition ..."

The law says (Extradition Act 2003 Part 1, Paragraph 2, Section 2):

"A Part 1 warrant is an arrest warrant which is issued by a judicial authority of a category 1 territory and which contains-"

"particulars of the circumstances in which the person is alleged to have committed the offence, including the conduct alleged to constitute the offence, the time and place at which he is alleged to have committed the offence and any provision of the law of the category 1 territory under which the conduct is alleged to constitute an offence" (Part 1, Paragraph 2, Section 4, Subsection c)

Not sure if that constitutes 'disclosure of the evidence against him" in its entireity; that will depend on the judge sitting at the hearing.

* Sources:

The Extradition Act 2003: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/operational-policing/extradition-act-2003?view=Binary

The Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 1 Territories) Order 2003 No. 3333: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/3333/pdfs/uksi_20033333_en.pdf

1
0
Happy

It all depends

You can be extradited for only certain crimes. I don't have an exhaustive list, but this isn't one of them.

You can't be extradited without charges first being brought against you; Speculative extradition is not permitted.

If I break a law in France, then flee to the UK, I will be charged with an offence in France, and should I ever return to France and be detained I will be prosecuted for those crimes. I will not necessarily be extradited for prosecution unless the crime is quite grievous in nature.

3
1

Re: As I understood it...

The NatWest Three were extradited to the USA for things they did in the UK (allegedly) that were not crimes in the UK but were crimes in the USA.

As Assange's case has such a high profile, maybe it will have the positive effect of showing up deficiencies in the European arrest warrant and extradition arrangements.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Hat-wearing

That's right. Usually you can't be extradited to a country X, where hat-wearing is illegal, from a country Y, where hat-wearing is not illegal, even if you really provably did wear a hat while in X. That's just the general principle, of course. There are loads of exceptions.

Is it still the case that France won't extradite a French citizen under any circumstances? If so, I raise my hat to our Froggy Comrades. Not that I was wearing a hat, of course, so please don't extradite me.

3
0

@Hat wearing

I'm confused.. I thought he was being extradited to face charges of NOT wearing a hat?

7
0
Silver badge
Boffin

@Loyal Commenter.. Google is your friend...

Here's the law...

First check out :

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/extradition-intro1/extrad-part-1/

Pay attention to the following 2 paragraphs:

"Extradition hearing

The extradition hearing should normally take place within 21 days of arrest.

If the judge is satisfied that the conduct amounts to an extradition offence and that none of the bars to extradition apply (the rule against double jeopardy; extraneous considerations; passage of time; the person’s age; hostage-taking considerations; speciality; the person’s earlier extradition), he is required to decide whether the person’s extradition would be compatible with the convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998.

If the judge decides that question in the affirmative, he must order the person to be extradited.

Dual Criminality Test

The framework decision contains a list of 32 categories of offence for which the 'dual criminality' test is not needed. The offence must carry a maximum sentence of at least 3 years in the issuing state.

If the conduct for which extradition is sought is not covered by one of these list offences, then the conduct must be an offence in both the issuing and executing states. Also, if any of the conduct for which extradition is sought was carried out outside the issuing state, the conduct must be an offence in both the issuing and executing states."

-=-

So the argument of 'duality' that is where the charge has to be a crime in both locations is moot if the charge is one of the 32 categories...

Which leads us to this site:

http://mle.ncalt.com/MLE/data/PL_LGL_NLD_01_02/D12400.asp

Note the following:

"Notes:

(i) Schedule 2 contains the European framework list, which is reproduced from article 2.2 of the European framework decision, as defined in section 215.

(ii) Schedule 2 can be amended, by order made by the Secretary of State, thus ensuring the list corresponds to any changes made to the European framework list.

(iii) The UK has reduced the sentence requirement for extraditions for the 32 generic offence categories (listed below) from 3 years down to 12 months.

(iv) 32 'offences' are listed, which in reality they are better described as forms of conduct (as they are in schedule 2), for the descriptions are generic rather than of a detailed legalistic nature - the purpose is to describe broadly since there are differing versions and understandings of offences, even of common offences such as homicides, across the European Union. "

And now the fun part.

In the list... you can see the following charge:

"28 Rape."

So in a nut shell, Assange is being charged with RAPE so that the duality test does not apply.

See isn't this fun.

The more you ask, the more you know.

1
4
PT

@Gumby

"So in a nut shell, Assange is being charged with RAPE so that the duality test does not apply."

Your point is undermined by the fact that Assange hasn't actually been CHARGED with anything.

3
1

@Ian Michael Gumby

"28 Rape."

Okay... But playing devil's advocate here... not for any definition of rape that appears in English law.

You seem to be saying that the name of the offence is what's important and that if (for example) France changed the name of their littering offence to 'rape' I should be extradited for that chewing gum wrapper that I dropped by the Eiffel Tower in 1994...

1
1
Thumb Up

Re: That's fine, but...

""However, you could not be extyradited to a fictional third country where the wearing of hats is illegal, for wearing a hat in the UK."

That's fine, and perfectly reasonable, except that the (alleged) hat-wearing took place in the country where hat-wearing is illegal."

But that's the point! Jules allegedly DIDN'T wear a hat, but it wasn't his alleged failure to wear a hat per se that mattered; it was the consequences (potential or actual) of failing to wear a hat, and that he failed to wear a hat counter to the instructions of the woman in whose body he placed that part of his anatomy that was hatless.

I thank the OP for unintentionally selecting such a good analogy. This is what is known in archery as a 'cock up'; the cock feather being on the upper side of an arrow when it is fired results in a misfire. Almost like firing on blanks. Hah.

0
2
Silver badge
Grenade

@PT

Do you actually read the documents link to within the article?

If you did you'd see the Swedish response to the point erroneously raised by the defense.

Actually if you read my posts on this article you will find the quote already documented.

1
0
Silver badge
Alert

@Alpha Tony... you cheeky devil you...

Not!

Sorry, but if you look at some of my posts, specifically the one where I mention "28 Rape",

"(iv) 32 'offences' are listed, which in reality they are better described as forms of conduct (as they are in schedule 2), for the descriptions are generic rather than of a detailed legalistic nature - the purpose is to describe broadly since there are differing versions and understandings of offences, even of common offences such as homicides, across the European Union. "

-=-

And this too was raised by the defense team with one of their expert witnesses on English Law...

The Swede's answer is that what the English consider Rape is not what matters but what the Swedes consider Rape since the alleged Rape occurred in Sweden.

The actual Skeleton reply document goes in to a lot more detail explaining the charges and if you want a more exact answer, please check that document out.

1
1
Coat

wikileaks

It's ironic that his defence are demanding the Swedish authorities provide all the evidence when it's already on wikileaks.

On a more serious note, if they want to extradite just to question him, why can't they question him here ?

7
0
Silver badge
Boffin

@AC wikileaks..

The legal documents from Assange's Swedish team didn't appear in Wikileaks. No sorry Assange would have put a stop to that. But they were leaked out to a different site.

What the defense is arguing is that they don't have *all* of the evidence that the Swedish Authorities have. Apparently the Swedes only presented enough evidence that they thought would be enough to charge Assange.

What is definitely interesting is that the Defense is on one hand arguing that Assange hasn't been charged yet... and on the other hand demanding to see *all* of the evidence that the Prosecution has collected as if he were charged.

That in itself is very interesting.

3
12
Silver badge

@ Ian MG

"What the defense is arguing is that they don't have *all* of the evidence that the Swedish Authorities have. Apparently the Swedes only presented enough evidence that they thought would be enough to charge Assange."

No, what the defense is arguing is that they have *sod all* evidence, not from the official channels anyway. Leaks in the media are not something you can mount a legal defense against.

"What is definitely interesting is that the Defense is on one hand arguing that Assange hasn't been charged yet... and on the other hand demanding to see *all* of the evidence that the Prosecution has collected as if he were charged.

What the eff are you talking about?

They are saying that

1- he isn't charged so there's no ground for extradition

2- they just remind everyone that IF he is to be charged some day, they need to see all the evidence (which is a legal requirement, as you cannot defend yourself when you don't know what you are accused of).

Hope that it cleared it a bit for you, you sounded confused.

7
1
Silver badge
WTF?

@ElReg!comments!Pierre

Ok, junior, I'll go slow for you...

You wrote:

"What the eff are you talking about?

They are saying that

1- he isn't charged so there's no ground for extradition

2- they just remind everyone that IF he is to be charged some day, they need to see all the evidence (which is a legal requirement, as you cannot defend yourself when you don't know what you are accused of).

Hope that it cleared it a bit for you, you sounded confused."

Ok, let me explain my response.

The defense is making two arguments.

1) He hasn't been charged therefore he shouldn't be extradited.

On this point the Swedish prosecution have argued that they intend to charge him once they can question him. This makes perfect sense when you consider Assange left the country with the understanding that he would make himself available for questioning. Which he hasn't. Once he has returned and is questioned, they will formally charge him.

(And this is legal.)

2) The prosecution has presented evidence to Assange attorneys and I suppose to the British courts showing that there is merit to the extradition and that within the Swedish laws, he is guilty of rape. Rape is one of those 32 crimes where one does not have to show a duality of the crime. The defense is arguing that the Swedish government is withholding evidence. Which BTW, I believe that they can do until they formally charge him.

The point is that the defense is doing a hail marry.

It would be interesting to see if the courts block the extradition at all.

2
4
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

@ Ian Michael Gumby

"This makes perfect sense when you consider Assange left the country with the understanding that he would make himself available for questioning"

AFAIK the case was closed and he left the country. And then the case was reopened, a move that was generally considered quite unprecedented in the context of the crime, which is called 'rape' in Sweden but it's not what you'd call 'a real rape' . To put things in their right perspective, extraditing Assange for this 'crime' is like extraditing someone to another country for an unpaid traffic ticket.

The whole case stinks.

0
0

Re: @ Ian MG

"What the eff are you talking about?

They are saying that

1- he isn't charged so there's no ground for extradition"

Well no, extradition is not being sought on the basis of a charge; extradition is sought on the basis that, whilst in a Swedish legal jurisdiction, he agreed to remain in the country and return to the police to resume and finalise questioning, but he FLEW the country.

Really the Swedes should have been a little more savvy to the fact that Assange was a flight risk. This of course means that they will be a lot tougher in future. Assange's selfishness, mendacity and slipperiness have made a rod for the backs of other suspects.

1
2
Grenade

Re: @ Ian Michael Gumby

"AFAIK the case was closed and he left the country."

No it was not. Assange was supposed to have returned to the police for more interviewing and agreed to, but he left the country for the UK. I call that 'flight'.

1
2

@Mephistro

>>"AFAIK the case was closed and he left the country. And then the case was reopened, "

What's the actual source for that?

What public announcements were made by the Swedish authorities that the case was closed?

>>"To put things in their right perspective, extraditing Assange for this 'crime' is like extraditing someone to another country for an unpaid traffic ticket."

That says a great deal about your idea of 'perspective'

0
0

@Scorchio!!

>>"...extradition is sought on the basis that, whilst in a Swedish legal jurisdiction, he agreed to remain in the country and return to the police to resume and finalise questioning, but he FLEW the country."

What's the source for that information?

0
0

rE: @Scorchio!!

">>"...extradition is sought on the basis that, whilst in a Swedish legal jurisdiction, he agreed to remain in the country and return to the police to resume and finalise questioning, but he FLEW the country."

What's the source for that information?"

I'll get back to you on this, I hope by tomorrow night. I have to search about 160 Mb of archival material, and I am uncertain of a search key. However, I expect to be back before he is likely to know whether or not he has a one way trip back to the land he skipped.

I suspect the Grauniad is one source.

0
2
Thumb Up

Re: @Scorchio!!

Not the one that I seek, but this is a beginning:

"Assange understood in August that Swedish authorities were seeking to question him about sexual misconduct charges, but the WikiLeaks founder left the country anyway, fearing a "media circus," according to someone who spoke with him at the time."

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=3943427&sponsor=

See also:

"Over the following several days, prosecutors spoke about wanting to question Assange, though also dropped heavy hints that they wanted to wrap up their investigation rapidly -- with the most likely outcome being a closing of the file.

[...] (new data/new lawyers)

In their official statement, prosecutors added that the original "molestation" investigation of Assange -- which was never officially closed -- also would continue and "will be extended to include all allegations in the original police report... There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed. Based on the information available, the crimes in question come under the heading of sexual coercion and sexual molestation, respectively."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/07/us-wikileaks-assange-charges-idUSTRE6B669H20101207?pageNumber=3

Not that I place too much weight on Wikipedia, there is an interesting reference there which is now partially superceded by the BBC Radio 4 report that I referred to between 17 and 18.000 GMT:

"Swedish investigators reinterviewed the two women, wanting to clarify their allegations before talking to Assange but he left Sweden on 27 September, according to statements in UK court, and refused to return to Stockholm for questioning in October, according to Borgström. According to Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, Assange made repeated attempts to contact the prosecution, spending over a month in Stockholm before obtaining permission to leave the country, with the Swedish prosecution stating an interview would not be required.[140]"

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Julian_Assange

We now know from the BBC that, far from being forthcoming, there were no responses from the Assange legal side to repeated attempts to contact them, and that his UK defence rep now agreed that he did have a record of these attempts, in spite of earlier denials. It is always best to avoid having your phone record subpoenaed, as a disciplinary can end careers (ACS:law is of salutory reminder value here). This may be why his UK legal team announced at that time that they could not find him, but later recanted, saying that he had not gone into hiding. A large inconsistency in the tale. A black hole.

I'll be away on Thursday and have some preparatory research to pull together tomorrow. Though I'm burning the candle at both ends I'm determined to pull out the report that I have.

Meanwhile do eat some popcorn on my behalf.

Before I go, I'd like to point out that Assange claimed in his Radio 4 interview some days ago that the Swedish legal system was practically of 'banana republic' standard. Oops. It looks almost as if he is pulling out all of the stops here, claiming that he won't get justice, trying to rope the Swedish prosecutor into the extradition hearings. I don't think that the lawyer has been very much in charge of Assange's case. I think that Assange has been trying to do a Wikileaks PR job on everything the shotgun can hit.

Let me know if this is not enough. I have a damned big archive on the twit.

1
2

@Scorchio!!

Thanks.

Given the various claims flying around, it would be nice to know exactly what was said between Julian (and legal team) and the Swedish authorities regarding Julian's departure from Sweden.

Has that been leaked yet?

0
0

Re: @Scorchio!!

"Given the various claims flying around, it would be nice to know exactly what was said between Julian (and legal team) and the Swedish authorities regarding Julian's departure from Sweden.

Has that been leaked yet?"

I've found nothing yet. I suspect the Swedish authorities are more capable of keeping their lips zipped than the leaker and his team. I'll keep an eye out whilst I'm on the road. BBFN.

1
1
Flame

It's an EAW

He has no rights to defend it in the UK, he must be extradited with all haste, the UK authorities must not delay processing Sweden's demand in any shape or form. At least, that is how the UK has dealt previous EAWs.

If the UK can fight/delay Assange's extradition, why can't they show the same zeal for others? At least Sweden has a proper judicial system unlike, say, Greece. Just ask Mr. Symeou (to name but one). Abandoned to rot by the UK. Guess he mustn't have been able to blackmail the right people.

So there you go people, if you want "justice" in the UK you either need the money or the dirt (and Assange has both).

3
7
Silver badge
Boffin

@AC

I'm sorry, you've lost me.

This isn't the UK fighting/delaying to extradite Assange. This is Assange fighting the extradition. If his lawyers can make a credible argument then the UK courts have to let him stay.

Its not a question of the UK Government showing zeal for others or any zeal at all.

Assange may be a douche bag, but he's still afforded the same rights as anyone else.

10
0
Anonymous Coward

@Ian

That's my point - under the EAW he has no rights. He must be extradited within 90 days (actually, 10 days, he gave himself up); no exceptions; no appeals; no nothing. It does not matter if the offence if a crime in this country or not, our courts have no authority over an EAW (as that was how we implemented them).

Instead he is allowed to swan about London, so he is actually getting afforded more rights.

2
5
Silver badge
Boffin

@ AC

I'm not an expert on EAW, but I believe the time period is based on due process and a speedy trial. The fact that he's fighting the extradition means that the 'clock' has stopped and that he's not being held or illegally detained.

Were he to have surrendered and not fought the extradition, he would have had to be produced within 10 days. Appealing the extradition doesn't count. So if he loses the appeal, he'd have to then re-surrender and he'd be shipped back within 10 days.

The only 'afforded right' would be bail and I believe that is at the discretion of the court?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Not entirely...

"under the EAW he has no rights. He must be extradited within 90 days".

This is not entirely true.

First, it has (obviously) to be a valid EAW. That is what Assange's lawyers are currently challenging.

Second, the Human Rights Act trumps everything else.

Assange is not being afforded more rights than anyone else but he does have the money and lawyers to assert his rights. Which he is.

5
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums