Quote ="Kosh"Still haven't read those links then?'" I don't need to read them to know the legal definition of having a case to answer and at what point it happens. That's why there is a formal charging process followed by a committal hearing. But if you are so obsessed with reading links then may I suggest you read this one, particularly paragraphs 167 to 169.... www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /15604.htm

Quote ="Kosh"Still haven't read those links then?'" I don't need to read them to know the legal definition of having a case to answer and at what point it happens. That's why there is a formal charging process followed by a committal hearing. But if you are so obsessed with reading links then may I suggest you read this one, particularly paragraphs 167 to 169.... www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /15604.htm

I can't be bothered going point for point with you Smokey, it simply never ends, especially you are being silly enough to suggest I want religious police - that's a great example of Godwin's Law, so I'm just going to say this -
Do you have any reason to think the Swedish prosecutors are any more corrupt or "worse" than our prosecutors or Police force? If not, why is it acceptable for a someone in Britain to be arrested and detained by British authorities but not on behalf of the Swedish?
We are not prosecuting anyone, we are merely detaining someone to be tried in a free, democratic country with an independent legal system.
The kind and amount of evidence you wish to be shown to a British court cannot happen without either prejudicing a Swedish trial or having a defacto trial in Britain.

I have no problem with us arresting and detaining someone on behalf of Sweden, as long as British protections and checks and balances put into British law to protect innocent people from wrongful and vexatious prosecution are available. The first and most obvious of those is the presumption of innocence, the second is that a standard of evidence needs to be met for a person can be punished, detained, or extradited. That is simply nonsense. We know it is nonsense because it is what happens in every trial which goes before a British court. Every single one, we don’t have a de facto trial and then a real trial, we don’t prejudice our own trials. It is ridiculous to pretend that doing that in this case would mean we prejudiced a trial or had a de facto trial when we do it every single time.

If the Swedish government can’t provide the evidence which the DPP and CPS believe would justify a trial in this country, then we should detain and forcibly extradite someone. If it wouldn’t justify detaining and trying someone here, it certainly doesn’t justify detaining and forcibly extraditing someone.

Not even sure what the argument is about now. Smokey you seem to agree that the EAW is valid and has been considered and upheld through the English courts, but you would like the law to be different than what it is. If that's a fair summary then nothing else to add?

Pretty much.

Though I would add that having a 3rd party, an independent sovereign nation able to offer asylum when our laws fail, is a good thing, and the reason we have a global recognition of asylum. It would be arrogant to think we are only a country that offers asylum and no other nation should even contemplate offering asylum from us.

"Laws fail"? Assange knew he was wanted for questioning in Sweden in relation to sexual offence allegations, and chose to do a runner. I'm not seeing any "failure" there, just someone who didn't want to participate in the Swedish legal process. It can hardly be said to have "failed".

It is our extradition laws and the EAW which I would argue has failed. There is no protection, no checks or balances, that would protect Mr Assange (or anyone else) from being extradited and detained for a crime for which there is no evidence

He isn't I saw him in Bubba Ho-Tep with a blacked out JFK.

Sorry, but what utter rot. Firstly, the evidence on which the Swedish authorities wanted to question Assange relates to 4 counts, set out in alleged victims' statements, including having unprotected sex with a woman who he knew would only consent to sex with a condom and having sex with a woman who was asleep. On no reasonable view can statements by alleged victims not be evidence.

Second, some of the best legal brains in the land have devoted countless hours to Mr. Assange and his problem, and you thus have no excuse for making such an absurd claim, especially as the full judgments at each stage of the process are freely available. They are exhaustive, and include several law lords (two of whom incidentally took a minority view in favour of Assange) considering every conceivable angle over very many pages of analysis.

While you may disagree with the decision, to extrapolate from that, in the face of the meticulous and exhaustive legal processes that have taken place, that "there is no protection, no checks or balances" is about as much the opposite of the case as it is possible to be. What more do you want? 10 televised debates and a national referendum?

But none of that was to actually judge the merit of the case for the charges he faces in Sweden, simply that the EAW was valid and served in a valid manner.

If Sweden's charges here are to boil it down 'a fit up' then we have done nothing to protect Mr Assange from that. There is no checks, no balances, no protection from Sweden lodging a valid EAW, served in a valid manner, which is based on evidence which wouldnt even justify an arrest, never mind charge, and never mind trial in this country.

What i am arguing against is this country being complicit in the forcible extradition and detention of someone, anyone, based on evidence that wouldnt even justify a charge.

Now it may be that the Swedish authorities have loads of evidence, they have it coming out their ears, they have an open and shut case, cast iron witnesses, dna evidence, a video recording which leaves no doubt, or it may be the case that they have nothing other than a witness statement which looks a little bit dodgy, doesnt really tally up with the events afterwards, statements taken in an illegal manner, which arent admissable. It may be that the swedish prosecutor interviewed both victims at the same time, in the same interview and their statements lack credibility for that, it may not. We should know what we are basing the extradition on before we extradite and that it is of a standard we would need it to be before moving to trial, the word of a Swedish prosecutor isnt enough imo.

The point is whether the evidence justifies an arrest and/or charge in Sweden, not the UK. Or are you suggesting that the UK should set itself up as the sole arbiter of legal validity across the EU?

And why do you think that is? Perhaps it is because Assange does not face any charges in Sweden!! The proceedings in Sweden are at the preliminary investigation stage. That does not come to an end until evidence is served on Assange or his lawyer and there is an interrogation of Assange with the opportunity for further enquiries. Only after all that would there be a decision as to charge.

So your point seems to be based on a total misconception.


Again, [ithey only want to question him[/i. Had he turned up to be questioned, who knows whether or not charges would have followed? You are very confused on this. All we have are complaints of sexual offences, which are being investigated. The only reason the investigation is still pending is because Assange did a runner.


You seem to be arguing that doing a runner when the police want to question you about serious allegations should be the ultimate get out of jail free card. They only need to extradite him in the first place because he was in Sweden, and said he would remain there, but had it away on his toes. They do not want to detain him but to question him. After that they would make a decision.


Well, yes, and as I keep saying, that is precisely what all the hearings have been doing, but you're not listening.

C4 fact check on the "he's only wanted for questioning" meme t.co/GjaVD6V8”

C4 fact check on the "he's only wanted for questioning" meme t.co/GjaVD6V8”

Quote ="tb"C4 fact check on the "he's only wanted for questioning" meme t.co/GjaVD6V8”'" [iMs Palmer said: “It is not true that Assange is only wanted for questioning. The next step in the Swedish proceedings is to conduct a second interview with him before making a decision whether to formally charge him. [/i So he is wanted so they can conduct a second interview but is not wanted for questioning. You couldn't make it up, unless of course they plan not to ask him any questions at the second interview.

Quote ="tb"C4 fact check on the "he's only wanted for questioning" meme t.co/GjaVD6V8”'" [iMs Palmer said: “It is not true that Assange is only wanted for questioning. The next step in the Swedish proceedings is to conduct a second interview with him before making a decision whether to formally charge him. [/i So he is wanted so they can conduct a second interview but is not wanted for questioning. You couldn't make it up, unless of course they plan not to ask him any questions at the second interview.

It was common cause in the High Court appal - ie, both the Crown and Mr Assange agreed - that he was wanted not simply for questioning but for the purpose of prosecution.

Hey, but feel free to keep an arguing a legal nonsense when even Assange says you're wrong ...

It's certainly come to something when Derwent & Smokey make Kirkstaller seem lucid

He has not been charged with an offence so can not be wanted for prosecution yet.

Before a prosecution takes place he has to be charged.

Before he is charged he has to be questioned.

Before he is questioned he has to be extradited.

Ipso facto the extradition for questioning is the first link in the chain.

The ultimate intention may well be to prosecute him but that doesn't detract from the above.

As I have said previously, I don't really care what happens to Assange but there is a much wider implication at stake here and I am surprised so many people are in favour of it given the usually left-leaning bias on here. Hey ho.

Why do you insist on applying UK legal procedure? It's [iSwedish[/i legal procedure that is relevant.

And why are you ignoring the fact that if he was just wanted for questioning [ihe couldn't be extradited[/i.

I know I keep saying this, but reading some of the links posted might clear up your apparent confusion.

Y'see that's the 'lefty' mistake people keep making.

Perhaps if you read the entire Commons Select Committee report that I linked to you would see that, while theoretically he couldn't be extradited just for questioning, it has been the case that many countries are using EAW's for "fishing trips" and the CSC were highly critical of the use of EAW's and how they are being abused. In particular they are scathing about the apparent erosion of the principle of dual criminality, something that would have been extremely relevant in this case. That is the real issue here, the abuse of powers by authorities, but if you're ok with that then fine.

I'm aware of the issues and criticisms surrounding the use of EAWs. However, in this case the EAW was thoroughly examined and tested at every level of the UK courts and found to be legitimate. In particular they examined the very issue you raise - dual criminality - and found that the crime Assange is accused of in Sweden [iwould also be a crime in the UK[/i. So your point fails. Something you would have spotted had you read those links I keep mentioning.


It really isn't. There is zero evidence of any abuse of power in the Assange case. Absolutely none. At all. By anyone.

I must admit I'm surprise that normally intelligent poster keep missing or ignoring this key point.

I think that numbers of the population must, at some time, have been programmed so that, on hearing the word 'Assange', their reasoning faculties go straight out of the window.

Sweden, for instance, has been hailed for years as a model worth following – until you throw the 'Assange' into the mix and suddenly it's another of The Evil Satan's best buddies.

It's almost funny – in a bleak, rather depressing sort of way.

Except that actually, it's not a legal nonsense. In order to get your head around it, it would be necessary for you to wade through the most recent judgment, of the Supreme Court, which can be found at this link:
[urlhttp://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/22.html[/url

The Supreme Court judgment is based on the interpretation of various bits of Swedish, English and EU law. It would be impossible to briefly summarise even this one aspect of it, and so I do not even attempt, but instead draw attention to the fact that in EU law, legislation is drawn up in one main language (in this instance, French), and while it is then translated into all the other EU languages, we have to note that:
(a) a direct translation is often impossible, for reasons including that the legal systems in various countries as well as the nature and roles of their judicial institutions are very different. Eg a word such as "judicial" can mean a range of different things and doesn't translate into one all-encompassing accurate foreign word.
(b) the language of the prime text takes precedence. Thus it is necessary to consider what the actual law is in the French. Even if the English version clearly says one thing, nevertheless if the French version actually means something else, that displaces the clear English words.

"Prosecution" is a term which can mean all sorts of things to different nationalities but the point here is that a person who is wanted for questioning because serious allegations (like rape) have been made against them is, for this purpose, wanted "for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution" and that is despite the fact that they have not yet been charged, and might never be charged.

The relevance is, of course, that an EAW (European Arrest Warrant) in Assange's case needs to be for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, so what you need to get your head around is that the Swedish "criminal prosecution" does NOT start only at the moment when a formal decision to prosecute is made, but includes the pre-charge activity which is the stage that Assange's case has reached.

And so yes, he is wanted for questioning, and has not been charged. And also, at the same time, he is wanted for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution.

The appeal to the Supreme Court, incidentally, was restricted only to the issue of whether the EAW had been issued by a "judicial authority" and the answer to that particular question is as clear as mud. It is a classic example of how rubbish our government is at drafting legislation, and how ready it is to plough on and force the issue and push things through even when specific potential problems are nailed to its forehead, and when clearly ministers are bot misinformed, and don't bother to check basic points. As a result, this EAW was (so the majority of the law lords held) issued by a "judicial authority" when in plain speak it certainly wasn't, it was issued by a prosecutor; but it goes something like this: in Sweden, before EAWs, prosecutors were among those who could issue a detention request; what we need to know is who can actually issue such things in any given member state, and as before EAWs, the Swedish prosecutor could do so, then that makes them "count" as a "judicial authority" for the purposes of an EAW. Even though they are clearly (to an English lawyer) no such thing; and even though when the thing was being debated in committee etc ministers assured parliament that EAWs would only be signed off by a judge, or a court. In other words, we envisioned a process whereby a prosecutor would go to a Swedish court or judge, set out their case and grounds, and have to convince the court or judge to issue the EAW. Whereas the result of the awful drafting, bad translation, and failure to heed direct criticism, has led to a situation where the reverse is true, and a Swedish prosecutor is thus deemd a "judicial authority" for the purposes of this EAW, which is therefore valid.

I would also point out that the question of whether Assange's being wanted for questioning counted as being wanted for the purposes of prosecution was answered in the affirmative by the judge who originally heard the case, and he found this:


If you want to read the whole thing,the full report is here:
[urlhttp://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/Misc/2011/5.html[/url
As for Assange saying this is wrong, well, I'm sure as hell he ain't happy about it, but as he did not appeal against this finding to the Supreme Court, what do you conclude?

I have no sympathy with Assange, who should have stayed to face the music, but I have great respect and admiration for Lord Mance, a brilliant jurist, and one of the 2 dissenting Lords of Appeal (the decision was 5-2), and had I been one of the judges then I would have sided with him. You may disagree, but I would recommend his judgment (para. 195 [iet seq.[/i as a compelling read for those with an interest in such things and even if you do, you have to concede that he has a point.

I bet Abu Hamza wishes he'd had Assange's PR people when the UK were desperate to get him out of the country.

He must be scratching his head wondering why he didn't think of the whole embassy thing.