1) He is Wanted in Connection with a Rape Investigation
People are still saying that he is wanted for "sex without a condom" which is an offence only in Sweden. Wrong. The European Arrest Warrant issued in respect of him clearly gives four offences that he is suspected of (but not yet charged for). They are one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one of rape.
The issue of whether these were offences under English law was considered by the High Court (click for judgment). Look at paragraphs 3, 78-91 (91 in particular). It is very clear that the alleged offence is rape under English criminal law. This very clear post by David Allen Green also sets out the situation: "English courts have held – twice – that the relevant allegation would also be an allegation of the offence of rape in English law"
Some people are saying "but he hasn't been charged". The High Court considered since and noted differences in procedure between England and Sweden. It determined he is clearly being "prosecuted". Whereas a suspect is charged early on in England, it is a final step in Sweden before trial. There is a prima facie case against him with sufficient evidence. Therefore extradition is possible, whereas in a case where someone is simply wanted for questioning it would not be.
2) This is the Personal Vendetta of one Swedish Prosecutor
Wrong. The Stockholm District Court made an arrest order against Mr Assange, which he then challenged in the Swedish Svea Court of Appeal. They examined the case in detail and determined there was probable cause and his arrest was justified. His appeal was dismissed.
3) He has not had Full Recourse to the Courts of this Country
Wrong. He has had a full hearing before the Senior District Judge and Chief Magistrate at the City of Westminster Magistrates Court on his extradition. It ordered his extradition to Sweden to face investigation (note, he is only the subject of an arrest warrant there and has not yet been charged). Mr Assange appealed this order to the High Court. It found against him. He appealed to the UK Supreme Court. It held against him.
4) He is a Fugitive from Justice
Indeed he is. After the Supreme Court ruling went against him, he skipped bail and sought refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador before his deportation was scheduled to take place (commencing 28 June 2012). He has therefore committed a separate criminal offence in this country for which he is wanted.
5) Britain has Threatened to Storm the Ecuador Embassy
It is debatable whether Britain has made an "open threat" to Ecuador as its foreign minister claims. The text of the letter delivered by a British diplomat is said to be a reminder of the law by the Foreign Office, and a threat by others. Judge for yourself. I believe it can most definitely be seen as clumsy and may well have pushed Ecuador into its decision to grant political asylum. As a small country it was keen to point out it was "not a British colony" and did not want to be seen to be bowing to pressure.
What the letter did not do was suggest Britain would break national or international law, which of course might well spark a serious international incident. There is a power under English law to withdraw diplomatic recognition from a premises, which was introduced after the shooting of PC Yvonne Fletcher. However, as Carl Gardner points out here very clearly any such decision must be in accordance with international law. To do so would set a very difficult precedent and more than anything this looks to me like very clumsy saber rattling (that had of course, the opposite of the desired effect).
As for the SAS being about to storm the Embassy? You've been watching too many movies. A dull court case argued by public international lawyers is a lot more likely than that ever happening.
6) Assange Can Now Leave the Country
Wrong. He is stuck inside the Embassy of Ecuador in London and the moment he leaves the building, he is liable to be arrested. Beginning in August 1989 and in the run up to November 1989, up to 20,000 East German citizens sought asylum in the West German Embassy in Prague. This presented a massive problem: they had to be housed and fed in the grounds of the Lobkowicz Palace because they could not leave until a diplomatic solution was found.
The only feasible way of getting Assange from the Embassy and to a flight out of the country would be for him to be granted citizenship of Ecuador and then to be made a diplomat. This would give him diplomatic immunity from arrest. It's highly unlikely, but in with the Assange affair one never knows.
[Post script: it's been pointed out to me that the UK would have to accept his appointment as a diplomat. Even more unlikely, so we can discount this one. Thanks @AdrianShort and @PeterNew!]
7) He faces a Secret Trial and/or he will be Extradited to America where he faces Death Penalty
I prefer to try to deal with facts. There is nothing to suggest either case. Sweden is far from being a tin-pot democracy. It is a fellow EU member and ranks amongst the very highest countries in the world for lack of corruption (Sweden is currently 4th in the Corruption Perception Index; the UK is 16th). If I personally had to go on trial anywhere, knowing I was innocent, I'd be quite happy to trust judicial process in any Scandinavian country.
The UK is interested in fulfilling its legal duty to extradite him to Sweden to face a criminal investigation. There has not, to the best of my knowledge, been any request to extradite him to the US made to either the UK or to Sweden. Arguably it would be less likely for this to take place from Sweden than from the UK in any case (see the many criticisms of our lenient US extradition policy).
Finally, both the United Kingdom and Sweden are prohibited from extraditing anyone who faces the death penalty under the European Convention of Human Rights.
8) The Man and the Movement
It is perfectly possible to support Wikileaks and the principles it stands for, whilst seeing Julian Assange as an individual to be judged on his own merits. Why is that so controversial or difficult to grasp?
Mr Assange is innocent until proven guilty of all the offences which he faces. He has not yet been charged. However, it seems fair to say that he has skipped bail in this country and that he is a fugitive from justice, who is wanted for questioning regarding very serious criminal sexual offences.
This issue is not like choosing sides in a soccer match. You can be pro-Wikileaks and keen to see the rule of law operate. This does not make you anti-Assange, an Assange Hater or anything else. I, like you, have no idea whether he is guilty of the alleged crimes back in August 2010. I do feel that the alleged victims deserve to be taken seriously, having taken the step of reporting the alleged offences to the Police, and that they should have some form of closure.
It is frankly irrelevant who the man is who is wanted for questioning, and what other great things he may (or may not) have done. If you believe in judicial process and the rule of law, it is hard to argue he should not return to Sweden for questioning (after, of course, dealing with the consequences of his behaviour here in jumping bail).
No comments:
Post a Comment