He would be charged were this England and the Swedish prosecutors representation is backed up by evidence. In fact, he can be charged in absentia in Sweden if those representations can be backed up by evidence. Yet they keep stalling with their nonsense about not being able to interview him abroad. Which does raise the question of whether they do have sufficient evidence to get him charge in Sweden at all.
That is true but they could've questioned him in England, or even in the Ecuadorian embassy. They have questioned people outside of Sweden in other cases. It's the prosecutors "opinion" that he needs to be present in Sweden.
What trial was he to face? Sweden hadn't charged him with anything. They wanted to interview him as a witness, against himself essentially, so they could use what he said against him if (not when) they might have actually charged him in the future. He offered repeatedly to be interviewed, first in the UK and later in the Embassy.
This whole situation was ridiculous and kafkaesque. Charge him or do not charge him, and if you do charge him then, any only then, demand extradition.
He couldn't be formally charged under the Swedish system because he wasn't in Sweden. (And yes, I know that in principle the Swedish authorities could probably have figured out some way to try him in absentia, but they chose not to because it would have been pointless, and they are perfectly free to make that decision.)
Everyone repeating this nonsense should just take the time to read the British High Court judgment, which sets it all out very clearly.
The opinion of the English courts is based on representations of the Swedish prosecutor on the express basis that the extradition does not need to concern itself with what evidence there is to support those representations.
In other words, it says nothing about whether or not there is a sufficient basis for charging him in Sweden, nor about whether the proseutors office will actually feel confident enough to actually go through with charges if they get hold of him.
It only says that if the Swedish prosecutor does indeed have sufficient evidence to get a Swedish court to charge him based on claims supporting the same allegations she has made in the EAW, then it would also be a crime in England and Wales.
Which raises the question of why Marianne Ny has doggedly insisted on carrying out this case in a manner that has prevented it from moving forward, nor tried to get him charged in absentia, which the Swedish system most most certainly allows her to do.
If he is guilty he also has every reason to avoid extradition - there are plenty of possible motivations. Regardless of what he believes criminal complaints have been made and demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the highest court in the UK, that he has a case to answer in Sweden and that justice is best served by extraditing him. Questioning him in the Embassy does nothing to mean that he would be available to be tried in Sweden, that is a simple enough reason for Sweden to want to question him in Sweden.
To add - the Swedish Supreme Court has also ruled against him last year, and a Swedish court in September ruled against him as well following the UN report. That is an awful lot of court rulings against him...
Among other things Swedish prosecutors refuse to question him in the UK, something which has been done recently for an alleged murderer. There is no obvious reason why they would refuse and none has been given by the prosecutor.
First of all, you can be charged in absentia in Sweden. If they interviewed him, and he still refused to return, then that would be a textbook case of a justification for having him charged in absentia.
Secondly, he claims that he will be extradited to the US if he is brought to Sweden. How exactly would he suddenly become more likely to try to flee if they decide to charge him? He is already claiming that going to Sweden means a risk of facing the death penalty in the US.
In that context it seems ludicrous to think that interviewing him and then charging him would somehow increase his resolve try to avoid extradition, or that this has been the case for a very long time.
It is not like he would have considered voluntarily setting foot on Swedish soil from any point over the past year or more. A charge would not have made that more or less likely.
Meanwhile, a formal charge would remove at least some reason to question the motivations of the Swedish prosecutor, and it would make it much harder for Ecuador to justify asylum given that they have publicly used this as part of their process for determining whether or not to give asylum.
As for that. At the moment he is holed up in a small embassy, while the Metropolitan police is outside, waiting for a chance to grab him.
Yet the Swedish police still refuse to interview him, while making up bogus excuses for why they don't. They could have stated the reason you suggest: That if they make the decision to charge him, they want to be able to take him into custody immediately under the circumstances. That reason is still a poor excuse, but they've not even tried to use even that.
If he is a flight risk in his current location, he is a flight risk whether or not they interview or charge him - his only realistic means of escape is if he gets asylum from Ecuador and Ecuador finds a way of getting him on a plane, whether smuggling him in an oversized diplomatic pouch or convincing the UK to give him free passage. Either way, this doesn't become any harder or easier depending on whether or not Swedish authorities interview him.
The Swedish might not be the only ones acting irrationally. But if they're not acting irrationally, it would imply they have a hidden agenda. If their agenda is what they claim it is, then yes, they are acting irrationally. Either alternative is pretty bad.
The nature of the charge is nonexistent. Sweden hasn't charged him with anything. Sweden is making a huge fuss over wanting to question him, and being stubborn about wanting to him to Sweden first. This implies to many of us that Sweden is not acting in good faith.
I always wondered why if the extradition is just to question him, it would be cheaper to just fly out a Swedish prosecutor/team and conduct the interview in the UK. Then they could determine if it should file charges and from what I understand the extradition for a trial is clearer and simpler to obtain.
Swedish prosecutors might be immune from official or open political pressure, but I'm sure back channels exist. That said I don't think any are being used in this case.
One thing I've seen a handful of times in Sweden, is a problem the US has too, prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves. I'd say that is what is overcoming the shaky facts of the case, a prosecutor who thinks it could pay off career wise.
He's not even charged in Sweden. It's fairly obvious the Swedish angle is being used to get him in a country from which he can be extradicted to the US.
He has committed crimes in the UK that he is wanted for. The charges in Sweden were dropped for practical reasons, something the UK should also have done. It's a sunk cost fallacy, they've spent a huge amount of time and money trying to arrest him despite it not being practical.
First, he hasn't been charged. Second, he faces the threat of extradition and execution if he answers the call to be questioned on Swedish soil. Third, the UK has spent millions each year to make sure he doesn't get away.
You need to read the UK High Court ruling. As is explained there, if Sweden had sufficient evidence to charge Assange in absentia they could do so and issue a European Arrest Warrant. The problem is that this would require the prosecution to demonstrate probable cause and proportionality to a public Swedish court:
> Under Swedish law the issue of a domestic detention order in absentia was a precondition to the issue of an EAW. That order was issued by a court which... had to be satisfied that there was sufficient evidence giving rise to probable cause and that domestic arrest was proportionate.
The Swedish prosecution (a political appointee) is claiming she cannot demonstrate probable cause without interviewing Assange, and yet she refuses to interview him. Leaving aside the absurdity of any reasonable person thinking that any interview will give the Swedish authorities the smoking gun they obviously lack, from a legal standpoint the only sensible explanation for their behavior is that it allows the option of extraditing without public judicial consideration of probable guilt and proportionality of prosecution. Couple that with the very obvious irregularity of the prosecution, the very real prospect of Assange facing indefinite detention in Sweden and the refusal to offer any guarantees against hand-over to the States and there is plenty of evidence that his concerns are very well founded.
Swedish law prevents this. In order to charge him they need to question him another time, that's actually been a major part of the fray so far. Check the New Statesman link that's posted around here for more information about the legalities surrounding this whole process.
This is pretty much irrelevant. They have two alternatives:
- They can interview him where he is now, and move things forward at least a little bit.
- They can wait - possibly forever - to interview him, and not get justice for anyone.
What changes if they interview him now?
They claim there are legal issues with it, but this would not be the first time someone had been questioned on foreign soil, and it would not be the first time someone has been charged in absentia if they were to go down that route.
He won't magically gain superpowers and fly away from the Ecuadorian embassy if they charge him before they have him in custody. All that realistically changes is that they have to publicly make a decision whether to file charges or not.
So the question the is why is that a problem? The cynic in me tells me that the most likely reason is that they don't believe they have a strong case, and that his dogged insistence on not going to Sweden suits the prosecutor perfectly.
>They have said they want to interview him before charging him, and they've refused to do the interview in the UK or remotely, instead insisting that he be on Swedish soil.
He's already fled the country once ahead of questioning. It isn't unreasonable to want to have him physically present if the questioning is going to result in an arrest. Hence the warrant.
reply