Owen Jones on Julian Assange

[Pabmusic]

...Of course he only has to go to Sweden - so why won't he?

And remember that Sweden is the country he wanted to live in. As I pointed out in post 90, this is the country he applied to for residence in 2010, at a time when the USA knew about him and presumably wanted him as much as they do now.

[Bryn]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19309183

Let's see what the Swedish line on that is. My guess is that they will simply remind everyone that such matters are judicial, not political.

[JohnSkelton]

According to the news, two women were sexually assaulted in West London tonight. Let us hope that there are enough police officers to cope and that not too many are diverted on one mission. My feeling is that everyone who cares about such issues might help themselves by not aligning too closely with individuals in the Assange case. That isn't advocacy - I wouldn't dream of being that impertinent but very sadly there are many clear-cut cases in need of support. For now, I would put those first.

Even by your standards that is revolting.

[scottycelt]

There are 50 police officers around the Ecuador Embassy in London. They have been there for many hours.

I estimate that this is at least 45 more than are usually allocated where a sexual offence is alleged - probably 47 more - and I am wondering what the reason might be for such a difference, seeing that no other matter is involved.

After all, he only has to go to Sweden. It isn't Russia or the United States.

I'm not sure even this point is valid.

If any other person accused of a serious sexual assault hid themselves away in a foreign embassy there surely would be a significant police presence at the building.

This particular case is heavily compounded by the additional factor that the UK is legally and morally obliged by treaty to hand the suspect over to another country (Sweden). A couple of police persons casually standing guard outside would hardly have been an appropriate and serious response in such a case of vital and important international duty.

When all this is over, I do hope the UK government has some redress in claiming suitable compensation from Mr Assange for the cost to the UK taxpayer for this significant police presence which is entirely the responsibility of Mr Assange himself.

[heliocentric]

When all this is over, I do hope the UK government has some redress in claiming suitable compensation from Mr Assange for the cost to the UK taxpayer for this significant police presence which is entirely the responsibility of Mr Assange himself.

True to the stereotype there, scotty!

[Dave2002]

This particular case is heavily compounded by the additional factor that the UK is legally and morally obliged by treaty to hand the suspect over to another country (Sweden). A couple of police persons casually standing guard outside would hardly have been an appropriate and serious response in such a case of vital and important international duty.

I am sure there are many more vital and important things for people to do. There should be no need to inflate this further.

My understanding is that the UK only has to comply with a request for extradiction if there is sufficient evidence etc., so the legal requirement to comply is conditional. I am not suggesting that this should not happen in this case, but there is not an absolute requirement to comply, and investigations should have taken by the UK authorities to determine that the requested actions would be appropriate.

[Pabmusic]

...My understanding is that the UK only has to comply with a request for extradiction if there is sufficient evidence etc., so the legal requirement to comply is conditional. I am not suggesting that this should not happen in this case, but there is not an absolute requirement to comply, and investigations should have taken by the UK authorities to determine that the requested actions would be appropriate.

The 'UK authorities' did spend the best part of a year satisfying themselves and the courts that the extradition was OK. The decision was challenged a number of times. The final decision came on 14 June when the Supreme Court ruled that the extradition should go ahead. That's when Assange was granted bail and ran to the Ecuadorean embassy, being accepted on 19 June.

[Flosshilde]

I don't think it is helpful to speculate upon the nature of the assault. The only definition of rape that matters is the one in Swedish law. Certainly, consensual sex where the consent is obtained by fraud is rape in English law. If the circumstances were that consent was given in the expectation that he would use a condom, but he didn't comply, then that might be rape in English law - it would be difficult to prove, I suspect, but that's a different matter. I have no idea of the position in Swedish law. (Post 11 is relevant, too.)

This might already have been answered, but according to this story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652) there are different levels -

"There is the most serious kind, involving major violence.

But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving violence but not violence of the utmost horror.

And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking generally, and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional pressure on someone.

The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four years respectively.

The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange will not spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to the accused man.
But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that Mr Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, less serious category.

[Pabmusic]

This might already have been answered, but according to this story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652) there are different levels - ... [/I]

Thanks, I'm not surprised.

Sweden wii, of course, have a different judicial system, because its a civil law country (based loosely on Roman law), not a common law one (based on English law). So there's probably no jury, and much of the testing of evidence will occur during the investigation, which will probably be headed by a 'judge' of some sort.

[Flosshilde]

Yes, a police interview regarding an alleged serious crime is now 'by strict appointment only', and solely at the interviewee's discretion it seems ...

I seem to remember that several NI employees were recently interviewed by appointment

the UK is legally and morally obliged by treaty to hand the suspect over to another country (Sweden).

I believe that the legal duty applies to people who have been charged with a crime - so far JA hasn't been charged, & is only wanted for questioning by the investigator.

[scottycelt]

True to the stereotype there, scotty!

My nationality and the fact that both my parents were also Aberdonians are quite irrelevant to this discussion, helio ...

Still talking about Aberdonians, I cannot resist telling the following very true story:

Some years ago my mother once attended an old-school reunion in deepest Aberdeenshire. She eventually got chatting to the organiser of the event, a local old loon called Skinner. It transpired that he was a keen gardener and enthused about his latest crop of delicious strawberries and wondered whether my mother would like a punnet to take back to Glasgow. My mother, not wishing to offend, feigned delight and accepted with gratitude.

On the day of departure Mr Skinner arrived with a box-full of strawberry punnets for most of the guests, approached my mother with one, and bellowed in his broad Aberdeen accent 'there ye are, that'll be saxpence, thanks, Mary!'

[Pabmusic]

...I believe that the legal duty applies to people who have been charged with a crime - so far JA hasn't been charged, & is only wanted for questioning by the investigator.

I think that's right, but he was arrested on a European Arrest Warrant (the thing police typically use when investigating crimes internationally) and it's that that creates the obligation. Here's a report from February 2011: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12569462

Incidentally, notice that in February 2011, although he said that the charge was politically motivated, Assange was not arguing that he thought Sweden might re-extradite him to the USA. No mention of that at all.

[Lateralthinking1]

My nationality and the fact that both my parents were also Aberdonians are quite irrelevant to this discussion, helio ...

Still talking about Aberdonians, I cannot resist telling the following very true story:

Some years ago my mother once attended an old-school reunion in deepest Aberdeenshire. She eventually got chatting to the organiser of the event, a local old loon called Skinner. It transpired that he was a keen gardener and enthused about his latest crop of delicious strawberries and wondered whether my mother would like a punnet to take back to Glasgow. My mother, not wishing to offend, feigned delight and accepted with gratitude.

On the day of departure Mr Skinner arrived with a box-full of strawberry punnets for most of the guests, approached my mother with one, and bellowed in his broad Aberdeen accent 'there ye are, that'll be saxpence, thanks, Mary!'

[makropulos]

I think that's right, but he was arrested on a European Arrest Warrant (the thing police typically use when investigating crimes internationally) and it's that that creates the obligation. Here's a report from February 2011: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12569462

Incidentally, notice that in February 2011, although he said that the charge was politically motivated, Assange was not arguing that he thought Sweden might re-extradite him to the USA. No mention of that at all.

Interesting. As has been mentioned before, Sweden is the country Assange applied to settle in before the alleged sex offences took place. And since then, and specifically since the issuing of the European Arrest Warrant, the same Sweden has been billed by some of Assange's supporters as a puppet of the USA. Presumably if it were, he wouldn't have been so eager to settle there in the first place. I'm not convinced that Sweden has changed in any way... It's easy to use hindsight, but I tend to think that he'd have been better off facing the music in Sweden before running into the arms of the Ecuadoreans two months ago. It's too late for that now - and I can't see this ending well for him whatever he decides to do. The really unfortunate thing (in my view) is that by not cooperating over the Swedish issue, Assange risks losing support for his wikileaks work.

I wonder why the Australian government is keeping so quiet about all this at the moment? The only Australian comment seems to be coming from Assange's mother.

[Dave2002]

It seems that Assange may become famous for more than one thing:

1. Wikileaks
2. Greater awareness of gender issues, particularly in relation to sex crimes.

I'm not totally convinced that what he might be charged with is not a crime in Ecuador, and possibly not in some other countries, perhaps even including the UK, is a good thing.