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.”

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


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.

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries 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 sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: