Julian Assange must face rape charges in Sweden, rules court

24 February 2011 by

The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange – Read judgment

Julian Assange, the founder of the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, must face charges of sexual assault and rape in Sweden, the chief magistrate Howard Riddle has ruled.

The case will almost certainly be appealed, so in reality there may not be a final decision for many months. Assange has a right of appeal on law or fact to the High Court under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003. Assange has 7 days to appeal, but otherwise the extradition would usually take 10 days to execute.

Assange’s skeleton argument, that is a summary of his legal arguments during the hearing, can be found here. You can find my previous post on the subject here, including an explanation of the law surrounding his potential extradition. Carl Gardner, of the Head of Legal blog, also provides an excellent post here.

Assange argued that the warrant was not validly issued, and that he would not face a fair trial in Sweden as the hearing would be held in secret. Such arguments are regularly deployed in relation to extraditions to countries such as Russia. A UK court must refuse an extradition request if its effect would be to expose a person to a flagrant denial of justice or human rights. But this always going to be much harder to prove in relation to Sweden, which has a well-developed legal system.

As reported by tweeters in the court, the judge ruled that the warrant was validly executed and that the Swedish prosecutor had the power to issue it. He was also unconvinced by Assange’s claim that he had made himself available for interviews in Sweden.

The judge accepted that the three offences Assange is accused of amounted to rape, and was unconvinced that Assange’s trial in Sweden would be prejudiced by the massive publicity surrounding the case. He did, however, advise that politicians and lawyers involved with the case should not comment on an ongoing trial. The abuse of process and human rights arguments were also dismissed. The full decision can be found here.

The case has been interesting on a number of levels. First, the controversial European Arrest Warrant which has been used by Sweden to force his extradition. And, second, the use of Twitter by journalists in Assange’s bail hearings has prompted a flurry of new court guidance on tweeting in court, culminating last week with the Supreme Court.

Both of these issues were discussed on the most recent BBC Law in Action, which can be found on iPlayer (UK only). Reaction to the ruling will be added to tonight’s repeat program at 8pm on BBC Radio 4.

So, part one of this saga is over. The next stage will be the High Court. But given that European Arrest Warrants were created to ensure easy extradition between European states, and the comments of the judge today, it looks like it will be difficult for Assange to convince the appeal court that he should remain in the UK.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more

2 comments


  1. madamgeeky says:

    Does anyone REALLY believe that he can get a fair trial in Sweden after all that has gone on? Does anyone REALLY think that hostile comments by the Prime Minister and other

    politicians doesn’t influence judges and juries?

    Anyone who believes that is in cloud cuckoo land.

    It is clearly now a political process, and he will be subjected to a political trial if he is extradited.

    FYI, all the Assange and Wikileaks videos have been collected here:
    http://wikileaks.videohq.tv

    1. Lloyd Jenkins says:

      If David Cameron told you someone was an ‘enemy’ of the British state, would you ignore the evidence and convict? I suspect not. You’re doing Swedish people a massive disservice by assuming that they will.

      The judgment dealt with the point well:
      “However I think it highly unlikely that any comment has been made with a view to interfere with the course of public justice. It is more likely that comments have been made with the intention of protecting reputations, including the reputation of the Swedish justice system. Moreover, I am absolutely satisfied that no such comments will have any impact on the decisions of the courts, either here or in Sweden. I know that there will be three lay judges in any trial in Sweden. Despite the suggestion that they are selected because of their political allegiances, there is simply no reason to believe that they will not deal with the case on the evidence before them. Any earlier impression of the merits of the case, whether favourable or unfavourable to this defendant, will play no part. In this jurisdiction we have ample experience of defendants who have been vilified and yet acquitted. The jury system (and if I may say so the summary system) is robust.”

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: