Lawyers representing WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange lodged papers at the UK's High Court this morning, in an effort to appeal against his extradition to Sweden. A spokeswoman told The Register that the High Court had received the papers but added that "no date was set, and no guidance has been issued." Last week it was …
Surely it should go a little like this:
J Ass: "I've not been charged with anything"
Court: "Oh righto, on your way then"
Shortly followed by:
Swedish prosecutor: Er, hang on chaps, according to our constitution, we can't charge people without questioning them, you know, get their side of the story as it were?
Court: Ok, that sounds reasonable. Ass, get back here, you're going to Sweden.
Because Sweden is so technologically backward they don't have telephones, videoconferencing, skype, or access to cheap flights to the UK?
I don't see why it matters *where* he is interviewed, just so long as he is. Then, if need be, they could charge him.
Missed the Court statements, did you?
Or did you just conveniently forget that, no, he DIDN'T leave the country after they said he could go. He left the country after they asked him to come in for questioning.
Read the thrice-damned Court papers, would you?
The Swedish Bar Association is, btw, investigating his Swedish lawyer for having, uh, conveniently forgotten that fact as well. The judge goes so far as to claim the actions is a "deliberate attempt to mislead the court".
RTFM or STFU.
Re: Missed the Court statements, did you?
Finally, someone who points out that Mr Assange was asked to present his side of the story, while in Sweden, but declined.
Skype is not a way to conduct a police interview - I can understand measures such as witness statements via a court established video link in certain circumstances (*), but not as a general rule.
As for Swedish authorities travelling to the UK after Mr Assange declined to answer their questions in Sweden.. why should they?
If someone from say, Australia, was on holiday in the UK, rented a car, was involved in a crash with yours, and subsequently, during an investigation, declined to be interviewed by the police, and booked a flight to Sweden, would you expect the UK police to fly to Sweden to interview them..?
* I have only indirect experience of the court procedures in the UK, and none at all with those in Sweden; only having worked there and knowing a few people as friends. I did work on a certain 'people at risk' system in the UK, and my ex was a solicitor who worked with social services, which due to the nature of her work often required evidence given by video link.
"Swedish prosecutor: Er, hang on chaps, according to our constitution, we can't charge people without questioning them,"
1) The Swedish already questioned Assange and then let him go.
2) If they want to question him further they can simply hop on a plane or even <gasp> use the telephone.
3) Swedens constitutional difficulties are not the concern of HM Gov nor Julian Assange,
4) Your grasp of logic is tenuous at best Mr AC
Re: Re: Missed the Court statements, did you?
WRT Skype, yes; the lack of non verbal cues (communication data; is the interviewee lying, at which point in the questioning and so on) are very important for tailoring the interactive process of interview. Even sweating and body odour can give away unease.
In sum; digital interviews do not give interviewers sufficient information, and it seems ever more clear that Assange, with the assistance of his Swedish defenders, fled from interview and thus, it would seem, he hoped to flee the consequences of his behavioural acts. His later scorn, describing the move as "ridiculous" and these women as being in a "tizzy", may even fit into the sort of pattern later seen in offenders - they minimise their offences, and are hostile to their victims - and I will be interested to see the closing stages here. Will he comply with the interview process, especially that part conducted by psychologists administering psychometric tests of the sort used on sex offenders?
The fact that his Swedish counsel appears to have facilitated his flight from Sweden appears to be under investigation by the Swedish bar association, and I hope this widens.
All that remains now is for a knot to be tied around the neck of the sack, the plane to do its job, and for Julian to be delivered to the people from whom he apparently fled. His nomadic and paranoid lifestyle should be noted; he was never going to stay there and answer the questions without being restrained, and the same applies to his return. Assange has tried among other things to digitise legal procedures to suit his convenience, and it looks as if he will fail, rightly so.
This will be very interesting.
The Judge has an interesting bio.
Howard Charles Fraser Riddle, 63, was for 20 years in private practice as a solicitor. He is a District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) based at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court, first appointed as a Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate in 1995.
He has been a member of the Sentencing Advisory Panel since 2004 (deputy chairman since 2007) and was recently appointed as a member of the Advisory Group to the Law Commission.
He is also currently chairman of the legal committee of the Council of Her Majesty’s District Judges (Magistrates’ Courts).
Source: < http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/wilkinson/authors.html >.
Appeals courts get to know their inferior judges and if this Beak has had many judgements overturned, Assange may be SOL.
As has been pointed out before...
... the Swede Plods should surely come over to the UK and interview him. Then they either charge him or they don't.
There is the matter of jurisdiction. Besides, I must admit it's amusing to see Assange twisting and turning and in general spout as much b*llocks as he can to avoid the consequences of his own actions. However, I'm not sure you can even get him shipped to Sweden - I doubt there is a plane big enough to hold that ego.
"His own actions" is not about Wikileaks (that's a separate matter, despite his attempts to make it look all and the same), but about the fact that he couldn't be bothered to do the right thing when asked - the whole reason why this descended into rape charges. He only has himself to blame for this - he had 100% the chance to avoid this. If Mr Assange thinks he is too good for common decency then I wish him a jolly good time with a cellmate called "Bubba" and shower soap dispensers mounted about a foot from the floor. But I think I have mentioned that already.
RE: As has been pointed out before...
And as has obviously escaped the narrow attention span of you Fosjays, in reality St Jules is just an ordinary citizen, and when ordinary citizens get a request to go in for questioning they don't send the coppers out to them, they have to go to the copshop. Assnut skipped the country and then refused to return for questioning, hence the request for his arrest and extradition. The little twit could have saved a lot of time (and taxpayers' money) if he'd just gone back when politely asked to. But then that wouldn't have gotten him his fifteen minutes in the spotlight and the fawning attention of the easily deluded. Hopefully, when his appeal is rejected, the little idiot can go do his self-adulation at Sweden's expense.
Re: Actually, no..
"There is the matter of jurisdiction."
Indeed, and it's good to see so many people summarising the legal facts of the matter, including the data revealed in court, namely that he left after being asked to attend an interview with the police, and that a) his Swedish solicitor had been told that they wanted to interview him, and b) they told him of impending arrest. It's good to hear the Swedish authorities will be investigating the Swedish solicitor. This individual has a lot to answer for. I don't expect any of the freetards/infotards/commentards to acknowledge the illegitimacy of this behaviour, but it's good to see it aired.
The More You Know
I hate to stop you in what is yet another one of your mundane exercises in functional illiteracy but exactly what in the fucking hell is a Fosjay and why, when absolutely nobody aside from yourself knows what the shit it actually means, do you keep hauling it out as if it's some sort of sublime work of concise character assassination? You aren't Nixon or Reagan. You can't simply witlessly label your opponents as hippies or punks and wave your hand and expect a whole political movement to nod their heads in agreement.
Oh, wait. Matt Bryant. Wish I'd seen that. Nevermind.
"It's good to hear the Swedish authorities will be investigating the Swedish solicitor."
So far it is only the Swedish Bar Association who is investigating. The worst they can do is take his license to practice law away - and there are a few who think that ought to be done.
But if he is found to have willfully misled the Court, then - oh, the irony - he could be extradited from Sweden to the UK >:)
His solicitor knew - Assange didn't, because his solicitor was unable to tell him.
Assange (and anyone else for that matter) is not obliged to be available to his solicitor 24/7.
Why should he, especially if he was sure he hadn't actually done anything wrong?
I think you misunderstand the point of a solicitor here. A defence solicitor works for his client and nobody else; not the prosecutors etc. Otherwise, an awful lot of defence solicitors would be in a lot of trouble!! Also, the defence solicitor is required to tell his client all relevant information about his position. So, a solicitor does not commit any offence by telling his client they want to arrest him. His solicitor claims he couldn't contact Assanje. Now, whether this is true or not is not entirely relevant unless they can prove it's a lie. Even if the solicitor could, so what. It's not the solicitors job to ensure he attends an interview or turns up for arrest etc. So, the solicitor is in no way liable for anything except possibly lying to the court for the statements he has since recinded. In order to make that stick, they have to prove he knowingly lied. So, all in all, if I were the solicitor, I would feel pretty confortable unless I had actually, knowingly lied.
Your statement that he left after being asked to attend an interview is incorrect and not true according to the court statements. His SOLICITOR was told they wanted to speak with him and also that they wanted to arrest him. According to him and his solicitor, that was never passed on to him as his solicitor could not contact him. Now, you can choose to believe that or not, but according to the court, that means HE was not asked to attend. Indeed, unless someone can PROVE his solicitor DID contact him, Assanje actually left the country without any knowledge of the request to speak with him or the arrest.
Notice here that I used the word PROVE. That means actual facts and not the usual 'he must have known', 'its impossible to be out of contact for 5 days' statements often made by people in the absence of a fact defending their position of ASSUMING his guilt.
RE: The More You Know
".....what in the fucking hell is a Fosjay..." Fosjay = Follower Of Saint Julian. I was trying to work "blind" into the acronymn somewhere to convey the correct level of self-delusion on the part of the followers, but "Fosbeejays" sounded like a Swdish sex act, and the delightful Ms Bee was already too unamused at Fosjay to risk it.
"....when absolutely nobody aside from yourself knows what the shit it actually means...." It was explained in a previous thread regarding the obtuse Mr Assange and his quest for supreme, paranoid egocentricity, but I assume you don't bother to read the posts of "non-believers" and just switch straight to rant mode, no?
"....some sort of sublime work of concise character assassination...." Why is it the Fosjays automatically assume anyone that doesn't keep their Faith is out to "get" Assnut in some way? You really do seem incapable of perceiving that others do not share your unquestioning support for Assnut without attributing it to some great, dark conspiracy. I suggest you read up on paranoid delusions.
"...You can't simply witlessly label your opponents as hippies or punks....." Since when did I call you lot either? I'm just enjoying poking fun at you lot after you spent so long telling us Assnut was The Messiah, only now it is very obvious to all that he has feet of clay. If you don't like it, don't be so sanctimonious in future until you're sure you know all the facts, rather than what someone (with an agenda of their own) has spoonfed you. Live and learn!
What's there to comment on in this tiny piece?
Nobody made you
Re: Comments enabled?
[points up] Some of us can do more than carp anonymously.
He can run but he can't hide
Assange by law must be returned to Sweden. He's just trying to escape accountability for his actions, like all criminals.
Surely he's innocent of any allegations until found guilty by a court?
Just because the prosecution documents were leaked and because the Swedish PM opened mouth before operating brain does not change that.
Move along now....
The European Arrest Warrant is just that: a warrant issued in a member state for his arrest. With the UK obligations in EU law, he is detained and sent back to the country that has issued the warrant.
If he had committed an offence in the UK and slipped away to Sweden to hole up, a warrant could be issued by the courts here for his return.
If a suspected murderer did a runner, the same would apply and I doubt many would object.
Justice is equal for all, you can't pick and chose which law to ignore because you want to be famous
But has he committed an offence?
If he has committed an offense then he should be charged. The fact is that he hasn't been charged.
would someone with a background in swedish law explain if he truly has to talk to the police once in custody. If he doesn't than what is the point of extradition to talk to the police?
Interestingly, it's a requirement within the human rights acts (European) that someone may not be forced to incriminate themselves. Therefore, he cannot be made to talk with the police and if they actually drag him back he can simply remain silent. If they force him to talk, they have breached his human rights according to Europe. Indeed, there are some who believe the British system of being able to assume something from someone remaining silent is a breach of that persons rights as the accused wishing to remain silent results in him (normally) effectively incriminating himself. However, this has yet to be tried in court.
He doesn't need to have committed an offence to be arrested.
As it stands, there is an outstanding warrant for his arrest in Sweden. The authorities there deem it serious enough to issue a European Arrest Warrant (and allegations of serious sexual assault/rape appear to be pretty serious to me).
As soon as the EWA is issued, whichever EU country he resides in is obligated to arrest and extradite him to face the authorities in Sweden.
Paris, 'cos people seem to think there is some political angle on it. Instead it's a simple matter of being accused of a serious crime and being sent to answer that charge.
I need more sleep
I misread (multiple times) the article header as "sextradition".
...that dear Julian has a couple of hundred thousand pounds in the shag pile - shoulda maybe paid for it in the first place, no?
So how's the Manning defence fund coming along then?
What about the Bill Clinton defence (defense) ?
"I did NOT have sex with those women!"
The more important questions
1) Which Border plod let Assange into the UK in the first place.
2) Which Sweedish plod didn't arrest him at their border on the oubound flight.
Yes I know all about free movement in the EU, but Assange hold AUSTRALIAN (OZ) citizenship which the last time I looked doesn't get him free entry here.
He should have been flagged up by the Sweedish plods as "wanted for questioning" and been shoved back on a plane to Ikea-land.
No one was looking
If JA carries an Australian passport, it will have been shown upon departure, as all flights departing the Schengen area depart from the "other side" of passport control. Upon entrance to the UK, his passport will have been submitted to gain entry.
These are irrefutable facts.
That he was allowed to depart Sweden and to enter the UK, it is a not unreasonable assumption that the Swedish police were not sufficiently interested to flag him, and similarly, that the UK authorities were equally uninterested in this matter.
This whole case is a crock, as anyone who can be bothered to read would know. Ploughing through this http://rixstep.com/1/20110201,00.shtml will reveal a disinterested 3rd party view from very close range. JA attracts his own brand of "groupie", and like famous people of all types, he takes the opportunity to bonk a few of them. No news there. That these two women have subsequently decided to amend their story after the fact is pretty much irrefutable, and combined with evidence from others that "immediately after" the alleged events, they were not at all enraged (or whatever they have since become), suggests that this case has no legs beyong the fact that some politicians in the US want to "hang him high"
Radio4's Law In Action did an article on the extradition and wider Jullian Assange case in general. The lawyers that they spoke to were pretty much all of the opinion that most, if not all, of the arguments that are coming out of the Wikileaks/Julian Assange camp range from unlikely to succeed to the legal equivalent of clutching at straws. The general consensus was that he will be sent to Switzerland and the appeals are most likely just going to delay this happening.
They also noted that there is a lot of borderline hysteria over this case, what with people saying that the USA will send him to Guantanamo and torture him then execute him. None of these things are going to happen, for various reasons (Obama has committed to close Guantanamo, people are only extradited to America from Europe with assurances that there will be no death penalty etc.). They furthermore noted that Jullian will be safer from US extradition attempts if he is extradited to Switzerland, because and extradition request to the Swiss will have to go to the British as well, giving two places to appeal against it.
Your post might attract some attention if you actually realised the extradition is to SWEDEN and not SWITZERLAND!! Bearing in mind that glaring error, most people will fail to read past the first paragraph.
RE: No one was looking
If you are so convinced Assnut has no case to answer, then surely you should be encouraging him to depart to Sweden immediatley and stop wasting more UK taxpayers' money. After all, his good name is in question (nearly fell off my chair laughing as I typed that one!). Oh, or is it that you secretly realise that he does have a serious case to answer in Sweden, and even if you believe the two women in question connived to set him up, or that you don't think (as a non-Swede) that the crime he is charged with is serious enough to require his imprisonment, you worry that a Swedish court might find the ladys' story more believable than Assnut's?
The point made is perfectly valid and rather points to the gravity attached to the case by the Swedish prosecutor. It was so important that by the time he 'fled' (according to some), they had neither raised an arrest warrant for within Sweden or even alerted the 'ports' to stop him. Of course, stopping someone at a port is impossible without an arest warrant anyway. This even though they claim to have known he was a risk and hadn't heard from him for several days (completely unreasonable according to some). So, the prosecutor was obviously completely unconcerned by it all. Not really the actions of the authorities when someone is guilty of a major crime etc..................
And, why should he return to Sweden and have his life turned upside down if he has nothing to answer for. What about if you were involved in a traffic collision in say Greece and were extradited so they could have a chat. You know you've done nothing and yet you spend say a week in prison 'helping' them before being released. Are you going to be compensated for your time, expenses etc.etc. You must be joking.................
If this really was such a big deal and he was resisting extradition, wouldn't it have made a lot more sense to send a plod or two over here and establish whether there really is a case before going to all the trouble of arrest warrants etc.etc.? It's also noticable that whilst they informed his lawyer they were going to arrest him, they failed miserably in almost every aspect of trying to effect that arrest!!
RE: @Matt Bryant
"....It was so important that by the time he 'fled' (according to some), they had neither raised an arrest warrant for within Sweden or even alerted the 'ports' to stop him....." It rather points to an assumption on the part of the Swedish authorities that Assnut might act rationally, rather than going on the run. They obviously didn't realise how paranoid he is.
"....And, why should he return to Sweden and have his life turned upside..." Erm, because he was wanted for questioning in relation to a reported crime! Oh, I forgot, you lot think His Holiness is above such mere mortal matters. And you can be extradited to Greece if you commit a serious enough traffic crime. There's already several cases on the go of British tourists that have committed serious traffic offences and skipped Greece, being chased by European arrest warrants. And in return, the British authorities are extraditing European truck drivers that have committed similar offences in the UK.
"....If this really was such a big deal and he was resisting extradition, wouldn't it have made a lot more sense to send a plod or two over here...." You obviously didn't think that one through. Much easier for the Swedes to post an arrest warrant and get the UK plods to send him back. No, His Holiness does not deserve special treatment just because you think the Sun shines out of his backside.
- DAYS from end of life as we know it: Boffins tell of solar storm near-miss
- Put down that Oracle database patch: It could cost $23,000 per CPU
- Bose says today IS F*** With Dre Day: Beats sued in patent battle
- The END of the FONDLESLAB KINGS? Apple and Samsung have reason to FEAR
- Review Porsche Panamera S E-Hybrid: The plug-in for plutocrats