I am slightly updating and reposting this from 2012 because the mainstream media have ensured very few people know the detail of the “case” against Julian Assange in Sweden. The UN Working Group ruled that Assange ought never to have been arrested in the UK in the first place because there is no case, and no genuine investigation. Read this and you will know why.
The other thing not widely understood is there is NO JURY in a rape trial in Sweden and it is a SECRET TRIAL. All of the evidence, all of the witnesses, are heard in secret. No public, no jury, no media. The only public part is the charging and the verdict. There is a judge and two advisers directly appointed by political parties. So you never would get to understand how plainly the case is a stitch-up. Unless you read this.
There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange. But the key question which leaps out at me – and which strangely I have not seen asked anywhere else – is this:
Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?
On 16 August, Julian Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen. Sofia had become known in the Swedish group around Assange for the shocking pink cashmere sweater she had worn in the front row of Assange’s press conference. Anna Ardin knew Assange was planning to have sex with Sofia Wilen. On 17 August, Ardin texted a friend who was looking for Assange:
“He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?”
Yet Ardin later testified that just three days earlier, on 13 August, she had been sexually assaulted by Assange; an assault so serious she was willing to try (with great success) to ruin Julian Assange’s entire life. She was also to state that this assault involved enforced unprotected sex and she was concerned about HIV.
If Ardin really believed that on 13 August Assange had forced unprotected sex on her and this could have transmitted HIV, why did she make no attempt to warn Sofia Wilen that Wilen was in danger of her life? And why was Ardin discussing with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and texting about it to friends, with no evident disapproval or discouragement?
Ardin had Wilen’s contact details and indeed had organised her registration for the press conference. She could have warned her. But she didn’t.
Let us fit that into a very brief survey of the whole Ardin/Assange relationship. .
11 August: Assange arrives in Stockholm for a press conference organised by a branch of the Social Democratic Party.
Anna Ardin has offered her one bed flat for him to stay in as she will be away.
13 August: Ardin comes back early. She has dinner with Assange and they have consensual sex, on the first day of meeting. Ardin subsequently alleges this turned into assault by surreptitious mutilation of the condom.
14 August: Anna volunteers to act as Julian’s press secretary. She sits next to him on the dais at his press conference. Assange meets Sofia Wilen there.
‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’
This attempt to find a crayfish party fails, so Ardin organises one herself for him, in a garden outside her flat. Anna and Julian seem good together. One guest hears Anna rib Assange that she thought “you had dumped me” when he got up from bed early that morning. Another offers to Anna that Julian can leave her flat and come stay with them. She replies:
“He can stay with me.”
15 August Still at the crayfish party with Julian, Anna tweets:
‘Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing! #fb’
Julian and Anna, according to both their police testimonies, sleep again in the same single bed, and continue to do so for the next few days. Assange tells police they continue to have sex; Anna tells police they do not. That evening, Anna and Julian go together to, and leave together from, a dinner with the leadership of the Pirate Party. They again sleep in the same bed.
16 August: Julian goes to have sex with Sofia Wilen: Ardin does not warn her of potential sexual assault.
Another friend offers Anna to take over housing Julian. Anna again refuses.
20 August: After Sofia Wilen contacts her to say she is worried about STD’s including HIV after unprotected sex with Julian, Anna takes her to see Anna’s friend, fellow Social Democrat member, former colleague on the same ballot in a council election, and campaigning feminist police officer, Irmeli Krans. Ardin tells Wilen the police can compel Assange to take an HIV test. Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s unrecorded – in breach of procedure – police interview. Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. Wilen refuses to sign it.
21 August Having heard Wilen’s interview and Krans’ statement from it, Ardin makes her own police statement alleging Assange has surreptiously had unprotected sex with her eight days previously.
Some days later: Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence; but a forensic examination finds no traces of Assange’s – or anyone else’s – DNA on it, and indeed it is apparently unused.
No witness has come forward to say that Ardin complained of sexual assault by Assange before Wilen’s Ardin-arranged interview with Krans – and Wilen came forward not to complain of an assault, but enquire about STDs. Wilen refused to sign the statement alleging rape, which was drawn up by Ardin’s friend Krans in Ardin’s presence.
It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:
Either
Ardin was sexually assaulted with unprotected sex, but failed to warn Wilen when she knew Assange was going to see her in hope of sex.
Ardin also continued to host Assange, help him, appear in public and private with him, act as his press secretary, and sleep in the same bed with him, refusing repeated offers to accommodate him elsewhere, all after he assaulted her.
Or
Ardin wanted sex with Assange – from whatever motive.. She “unexpectedly” returned home early after offering him the use of her one bed flat while she was away. By her own admission, she had consensual sex with him, within hours of meeting him.
She discussed with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and appears at least not to have been discouraging. Hearing of Wilen’s concern about HIV after unprotected sex, she took Wilen to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Wilen’s story into a sexual assault – very easy given Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws. Wilen refused to sign.
At the police station on 20 August, Wilen texted a friend at 14.25 “did not want to put any charges against JA but the police wanted to get a grip on him.”
At 17.26 she texted that she was “shocked when they arrested JA because I only wanted him to take a test”.
The next evening at 22.22 she texted “it was the police who fabricated the charges”.
Ardin then made up her own story of sexual assault. As so many friends knew she was having sex with Assange, she could not claim non-consensual sex. So she manufactured her story to fit in with Wilen’s concerns by alleging the affair of the torn condom. But the torn condom she produced has no trace of Assange on it. It is impossible to wear a condom and not leave a DNA trace.
Conclusion
I have no difficulty in saying that I firmly believe Ardin to be a liar. For her story to be true involves acceptance of behaviour which is, in the literal sense, incredible.
Ardin’s story is of course incredibly weak, but that does not matter. Firstly, you were never supposed to see all this detail. Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret. There is no jury, and the government appointed judge is flanked by assessors appointed directly by political parties. If Assange goes to Sweden, he will disappear into jail, the trial will be secret, and the next thing you will hear is that he is guilty and a rapist.
Secondly, of course, it does not matter the evidence is so weak, as just to cry rape is to tarnish a man’s reputation forever. Anna Ardin has already succeeded in ruining much of the work and life of Assange. The details of the story being pathetic is unimportant.
By crying rape, politically correct opinion falls in behind the line that it is wrong even to look at the evidence. If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?
Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six.
sorry, the quote above came from Villager, not Arbed.
The Blue, 10.52pm and 3.16am
Yes, again Blue, very astute observations, but the puzzle of why there is a gap of 1 hour, 34 minutes between Sofia Wilen first learning – with “shock”, supposedly – at 17.06pm about the arrest warrant for Assange and her apparently being too distressed to finish her witness statement or sign it because of that same news, causing Irmeli Krans to call a halt at 18.40pm, is even more complicated…
Apparently, despite her shock and distress, Sofia Wilen still managed to keep her composure enough to ask lots and lots of questions about complainants’ rights and compensation measures for at least the final 10 minutes of the interview.
Page 15 of the Assange-UC-Kompress document [download https://www.divshare.com/download/23689914-fad] gives Sofia Wilen’s case number K246314 and a timestamp of 2010-08-20 18:30 and lists the following as information given to her before the interview ended:
This seems to me to be far more detailed than the information usually offered to rape complainants by the police (from my own personal experience of reporting rape), almost as if this deluge of information has been prompted by detailed questions on the matter from Sofia Wilen (who at this time is supposed to be too distressed to even have her statement read back to her or to sign it).
Needless to say, I think you are right Blue – Sofia Wilen’s “distress” about something about which she had already been informed an hour and a half earlier comes just as things are getting to the ‘awkward’ part where she has to explain her own actions after Tuesday 17 August.
To make it even clearer how Sofia seems at the end of her interview with Irmeli Krans to be seeking specific information regarding financial compensation for rape ‘victims’, contrast it with the corresponding document setting out the information that Linda Wassgren would have expected to give to Anna Ardin IF ANNA ARDIN HAD BEEN AROUND WHEN THE FORMAL COMPLAINT CONCERNING HER ‘ALLEGATIONS’ WAS LODGED ON HER BEHALF AFTER SHE HAD ALREADY LEFT KLARA POLICE STATION
Sorry for shouting, but this is the info I said I’d spotted in the Assange_UC_Kompress that shows that Anna Ardin was likely being truthful when she said that she had never intended to file a complaint against Assange. In fact, given that she is on record as saying she only spoke to Linda Wassgren for a short while [Was it 15 minutes, or 45 minutes? – Can someone check what Marie Sveland’s book Hatred actually says?] after Sofia Wilen goes off with Irmeli Krans, and we know she left to get ready to go partying with Kasja Borgnase, it’s entirely possible that Anna Ardin only learned that her own case had become a formal complaint the following day, Saturday 21 August. Maybe she only learned it when Sara Wennerblom telephoned her for a statement. Maybe it was earlier than that, when the Expressen story hit the Swedish newsstands the previous evening, or in the early hours of Saturday when it went global. But she almost certainly didn’t know about it when she left Klara station after accompanying Sofia Wilen there to support her.
Anyway, here’s the document, showing Ardin’s case number K246336 and timestamp 2010-08-20 17:46, indicating what Linda Wassgren would have expected to inform a complainant about:
Anna Ardin had already left Klara when her ‘complaint’ was officially logged!
Arbed, 1.09pm
Sorry, got my page numbers mixed up. It’s page 14 of Assange_UC-Kompres which gives Sofia Wilen’s 10-minute chat about financial compensation etc with Irmeli Krans. Page 15 is the corresponding document for Anna Ardin.
Afterthought:
Comparing this with the corresponding document for Anna Ardin it is clear that it’s a form with the standard text “Complainant was asked about the decision according to 13b S FUK according to the following:”, meaning that the inserted text “and wants to be notified” indicates that Sofia Wilen has specifically requested that she is notified of all possible eventualities that are listed here regarding the investigation and potential trial.
This, of course, makes a complete nonsense of all her texts claiming that she “only wanted him to get a HIV test” and “didn’t want to accuse JA of anything”.
From this point forward I think it’s right to view any and all of Sofia Wilen’s SMS messages, or her statements to her witness friends prior to their witness statements being given to police, or the things that Anna Ardin reports her as having said, or the things that Julian Assange reports her as having said to him, as highly, highly dubious. She is clearly an accomplished LIAR.
So, what is it that motivates Sofia Wilen?
Excitement? Money? Fame? Infamy? All of the above?
Sterling, i think the initial motivator was a genuine fear of HIV. Her ex-boyfriend had confirmed that she was particularly careful of this. It is completely compatible for her to have completed their early morning session — without saying stop — when JA was ‘wearing her’ rather than a condom, with her concern in the sense of a fait accompli. Assange joked that if they would have a baby she could be named Afghanistan. (Money did come up at this stage in terms of her student loan iirc.) She bicycled him over to the station and then Assange ignored her. She might’ve harboured hopes but at a minimum she could’ve felt used. He didn’t even call and thank her for her hospitality.
I don’t think she was exacting revenge but after contact with AA she/the situation got, by definition, confused. Once a criminal case, the matter is out of one’s hands, isn’t it Arbed?
Of course there is then the matter of CB’s influence/input her final statement. Exactly what were these? Of course by that time SW knew any rapport with JA was over. So,yes Sterling money, which was already on her mind sounds a plausible motive.
Hi Villager,
Well, this is one of those instances of what I mean when I say you need to take any statements of Sofia Wilen’s that we hear of via her witnesses with a high level of scepticism. Seth Benson was not interviewed by police until 22 October 2010, 63 days after Wilen had first filed her ‘rape’ complaint. Seth reports that he was phoned up by Sofia Wilen out of the blue – the exact date is not recorded – but he says he had not spoken to her for months:
As you can see, Sofia has phoned an ex-boyfriend she hasn’t bothered to contact for months specifically to tell him she was ‘raped’ (again, this completely contradicts her text messages from 20th/21st August that she “didn’t want to accuse JA of anything” and “only wanted him to take a test”) and that she was ‘asleep’ (which contradicts what she told her other friend Katarina that she was “half-asleep”). I’m highly suspicious that the true motive for Wilen to phone up her ex out of the blue is to do a bit of coaching with what she would like him to say to the police.
I believe Flashback also dug up something that, far from the two having not been in contact for months, there is evidence that Seth Benson was still living with Sofia Wilen a few days before she met Julian Assange for the first time on 14 August 2010. Certainly, he was still registered at her address and his new job contract at Hyper Island only started on 8 August 2010.
It doesn’t make sense that a woman worried about HIV and pregnancy would think it “too late” seconds after penetration. The risk must be greatly reduced by not continuing. When did it become too late?
Her exboyfriend Seth lived in San Fransisco 2002-2007 (see flashback https://www.flashback.org/p40321645#p40321645) which could possibly explain why she wanted to be extra careful with him. Not that it should have been necessary after they had both had been tested after a few months together. Perhaps she didn’t trust the tests?
Thanks for the discussion re Wilen’s motives.
My interest at this point is in identifying a timeline of Wilen’s and Ardin’s motives over the whole period of this saga, that is consistent with the known facts, in order to explain how the events unfolded as they did; and perhaps how they might unfold in the future. Some early speculations about both women’s characters and personalities has, I believe, caused us to misinterpret some information and has muddled our comprehension of why the matter developed in the way that it did.
It is the relationship between the nitty-gritty details, as discovered and shared by Arbed and others, that gives us an insight into how Wilen’s and Ardin’s moods must have transformed and impacted on their intentions to act in the manners that we have found difficult to understand.
I think it has finally become apparent that neither Wilen nor Ardin entered into a plot with the authorities to entrap Assange for the purpose of destroying Wikileaks. Various tidbits of information, such as the text messages and tweats from the women, are inconsistent with a vitally careful execution of a political plot. Although a subsequent plot appears to have been conceived upon the realisation of the opportunity afforded by the women’s post coital behaviour.
So a convincing explanation that focuses on their respective motives might inform us of where we stand today. Is Wilen after money? Is Ardin after notoriety? If we can somehow estimate their states of mind, we might make sense of why they are pursuing their respective courses of action and how they might respond to various scenarios if and when they unfold.
More biographical information on both women would help.
Hi Sterling,
Yes, I too see no need for the women to be part of some nefarious intel agency plot (although there’s plenty of evidence that Assange was under surveillance the whole time he was in Sweden) – it can all be a matter of ordinary women making false allegations from motives of revenge, taking advantage of financial compensation, etc etc, but afterwards the TPTB and the politicians taking over to take the case into the realms of “conspiracy”. Those types of conspiracy – political conspiracy by powerful factors – are common the world over.
A detailed timeline would be an absolute boon, but it’s a heck of a lot of work. I think what it needs is for someone to set up a dedicated website with two sections, one like our blog thread here for continuing disection and analysis, and the other side of those timeline apps that allows you to segment almost to the minute. I don’t have the resources to set up such a website myself but I will contribute everything I have to the timeline and analysis.
Thanks, Arbed.
Thanks to Google Docs, we can set up a spreadsheet with controlled access (ie read and write) that could serve the purpose of a timeline.
Let me look into it and I will advise accordingly.
Hi Sterling,
I’m not sure something like an Excel spreadsheet would be up to the job for a timeline as detailed and complex as we’d need it to be. But there are good timeline plug-ins around. This one looks ugly, but just to illustrate what I mean. I know there are much better and clearer ones than this available:
https://wordpress.org/plugins/simile-timeline-display/screenshots/
Interesting coincidence…
30 cars, sniffer dogs, Secret Service, surround Swedish embassy in Washington after alleged #Assange bomb translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.expressen.se%2Fnyheter%2Fsvenska-ambassaden-utrymd-efter-bombhot%2F … #svpol
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/413791147723472897
and
Interestingly TT (the Swedish newswire) called 2 days ago to say that they had been told the Swedish case against Assange was to be dropped.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/413787557101445120
” No smoke without fire” applies more to the latter than the former.
Though somehow i can’t see the case being dropped before, at a minimum, an interview with Assange in London. Can you?
Just a tiny little fantasy:
I think SW’s main goal was payback. It was never about HIV or rape, those were means to an end. She had talked about going to a tabloid, the one he wasn’t working for, but when they published the story (without her help) she was angry. Perhaps she had to be the one telling them, to be in control.
I imagine she juggled several ideas in parallel. She demanded him to test himself. He said he could take the test but didn’t like being blackmailed. The wish appears to have been presented in a way intended to make him uncomfortable, because he had to be punished, by her. It was revenge and control, not HIV anxity. When the rape accusation opportunity opened up, she kept a wide open, unprotected mind. It offered one more way to get at him. As if she grasped at any straw.
If it’s about the revenge, she doesn’t care how. That could be why she appears shifty, because it doesn’t matter.
Villager, 10.38pm
“Though somehow i can’t see the case being dropped before, at a minimum, an interview with Assange in London. Can you?”
Dunno. I’m trying to imagine what PR ‘reasoning’ the Swedish Prosecution Authority would give for dropping the case. They can’t use ‘statute of limitations’ as it hasn’t run out yet for the most serious allegation. Doing an interview in London then dropping the case could have its face-saving value, but would surely open them up to so many questions about “why the wait until now?” For sure, if they are about to drop it, they’ll want to do it in such a way as to leave the matter unresolved, with as much remaining stigma on Assange as possible.
Arbed, they could make some fuzzy half-political remark up to the effect that ‘we recognise that the EAW system as a whole isn’t ideal, its about to be changed, so we decided to be more flexible.’ Or even that it is ‘not fair to keep the complainant swaiting any longer, not our ideal place to interview him, but under the circumstances we thought we should be more flexible for the sake of justice.’
If i haven’t made it sound credible after 2 minutes of thinking, they’ll spend 2 weeks and craft something that the public can swallow.
Hi Villager,
Yes, of course you’re right – whatever the reason given it will be honed to within an inch of its life. However, it will still be utterly transparent. Thanks to Edward Snowden, disbelieving every word that comes out of the corporate media is this year’s New Black.
Arbed re timeline – let me put something up and have a look. I want something easy to start, maintain and read for most people in a table format — date & time, events, sources, notes — not an information management system per se.
Re Flushing out Assange – yes, I agree that dropping the Swedish case is an important step to enticing Assange out of his indefinite safe haven. With Assange’s involvement with Snowden and some very serious leaks coming out soon, it is becoming increasingly urgent that Assange be obviated.
Some points to consider regarding Assange’s possible exit from the Ecuadorean embassy –
* What possible UK offences exist that puts Assange at risk of immediate arrest and certain remand in custody to allow the UK time to develop an extradition plan? Skipping bail? Do bail offences still stand if a case is dropped for reasons that no offence is found to exist? I think they do, and Assange can expect an immediate arrest, detention and protracted legal battle.
* The UK has spent millions of pounds besieging Assange at the embassy, they will not tolerate him walking out a free man, able to continue to embarrass and damage their #1 ally thereby causing them embarrassment and damage to their relations with the US.
* If the Swedish authorities are considering dropping the case, I can only imagine that it is a tactic to assist the UK-US in deploying another tactic. However, if the Swedes no longer believe in the validity of the allegations, then they will want a face-saving means of quashing the matter without any implication of failure on their part. One way is to discredit the complainants and their allegations – but if Wilen and Ardin have been inducted into a plot, they cannot risk antagonising them with the attendant risk of them revealing the existence of such a plot.
The Swedes have put themselves in a difficult situation. They have insisted that serious crimes of rape have occurred and these cannot be easily waved away by interviewing Assange and closing the case. What crucial information would be discovered in an interview? Assange : “No, I didn’t do that, that’s not true, she said blah blah, I did wiggle diggle. I was a complete gentleman.” Investigator : “Oh, well that clears everything up. Sorry for wasting your time Mr Assange. Good day.”
An interview must produce one of two possible outcomes – either a decision to drop the case or a decision to charge. Charging him would only stiffen his resolve to remain at the embassy where he can continue to work against the evil empire. Dropping the case would result in the acutely embarrassing observation that millions of pounds were wasted on a siege because they refused to do something that they said was impossible only to go ahead and do it anyway. Not only does that stink, it would piss off a lot of taxpayers.
Therefore, I think interviewing Assange is unlikely. Although having Assange go to Sweden for questioning and then closing the case would be a different thing. They could then say “See! All you had to do was return to the friendly state of Sweden to clear this whole thing up.” But of course, Assange will never return there.
* Imagine if Sweden dropped the case, the UK said it’s no longer interested and the US gave formal assurances that Assange will not be charged with any offences they are currently contemplating. Assange leaves the Ecuadorean embassy a free man, goes back to work, travels around giving lectures at universities and then gets mugged at 2am outside his home, the vicious bashing leaving him with permanent brain damage. Problem solved.
Therefore, I believe the Swedish case to be merely incidental to an ongoing security threat to Wikileaks’ (Assange’s) work. Our speculation about how the case will develop and be resolved simply leaves us with my last point above. That Assange can never be free until he is no longer a threat to our powerful overlords.
Discussion about bail absconding :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-457471/Thousands-bail-jumpers-escape-jail-guidelines-weakened-ease-prisons.html
Hi Sterling,
I’m not sure that Assange’s “bail-jumping”/seeking political asylum will be much of a sticking-point. During the hearing to decide how much Assange’s sureties should forfeit Justice Riddle made a point of mentioning in his judgment a way for the sureties to eventually recover their money if it turns out that Assange “had good reason” to not attend his extradition appointment. Yes, Justice Riddle was the same judge who approved the original extradition at Belmarsh, so perhaps he felt some contrition as more facts about the abuse of due process in this case had come out in the interim between these two hearings.
I’ll see if I can dig out Justice Riddle’s judgment where he discusses all this, if you like.
Trenterx at the Flashback forum has compiled a handy primer of the Assange case and all that’s wrong with it. It’s been translated into English here:
http://assangeinswedenbook.com/2013/12/19/trenters-sixteen/
And we’ve been taken under wing – dubbed Flashback’s “sister site”, haha.
Arbed @ 6;19pm
Hi Arbed, that is *very* interesting. Yes it would be interesting to see an extract of the judgment.
Here you go, Villager – Justice Riddle’s judgment regarding the sureties’ forfeiture:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sureties-julian-assange-08102012.pdf
You’ll see on page 4 that the judge says:
and goes on to say on page 5:
Mr Blaxland was the QC representing four of the sureties. Reading the whole thing, the judgment seems overall sympathetic and I therefore read this passage as the judge deliberately leaving open the way for Assange and his sureties to get his failure to answer bail quashed and his sureties’ money returned. The Telegraph’s report of the hearing also picked up on the “reasonable cause” defence and the judge’s sympathetic tone:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9594015/Julian-Assanges-backers-told-to-pay-93500-over-bail-breach.html
Flashback are wondering what effect Brazil’s recent switch from (US) Boeing to (Swedish) Grippen for a multi-billion jet fighter contract because of outrage over the NSA spying will have on the Assange case:
https://www.flashback.org/sp46684919
Background:
Insight: How U.S. spying cost Boeing multibillion-dollar jet contract
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/us-boeing-brazil-insight-idUSBRE9BJ10P20131220
Arbed, reasonable cause for absconding would only be applicable if it is proven to have transpired, ie Mr X WAS kidnapped versus Mr X believed he MIGHT be kidnapped. Therefore, Assange would need to be subject to a US extradition from Sweden or actual evidence that it has been arranged for that to apply, in my opinion. Also, it would need to be proven that such an extradition would be unjust and that his fears of a wrongful conviction were reasonable. No one has a right to abscond for fear of a proper prosecution of an offence. What is “proper” is for the courts to decide and we’ve already seen how that works.
In any case, the authorities would have just cause to arrest and charge Assange, detain him and prosecute him regardless of the merits of a defence for absconding. It is during that time of detention, protracted through legal tricks, that the authorities can plot their subsequent moves to fix him up.
Britain was going to leave the EAW temporarily, I believe. When does that happen? Will it change anything?.
Hi Axel,
Yes, the UK will be opting-out in May 2014 and then opting back in on 1 December 2014, with the proviso that under the opt-back-in the UK’s interpretation of EAWs will be that they can be refused for “trivial offences” and “the country seeking them has made a decision to charge and try them, unless their presence is required to make that decision”:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23224306
However, because the EAW is seen as so problematic here in the UK, there will also be a separate vote in Parliament on it. Details here:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/news/131031-pre-lisbon-rpt-pubn/
Civitas has done a handy primer of all the arguments:
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/EuropeDebateNo3Justice.pdf
This timetable leaves a gap of a few months – between May and December 2014 – where current but not yet exercised EAWs are no longer valid. Presumably, this includes Marianne Ny’s one for Julian Assange. The UK Home Office has announced it has a team that is working to make this gap, or “transition period”, operate as smoothly as possible. However, under the proposed new safeguards the UK intends to build in before the opt-back-in – specifically that “a decision to charge” needs to have already been taken – Marianne Ny’s warrant cannot be revalidated as Swedish law forbids a prosecutor from taking the decision to prosecute before the conclusion of a preliminary investigation (and, of course, all suspect questioning necessary to that end). There is that caveat “unless their [the suspect’s] presence is required in order to make that decision” but I really cannot see how Marianne Ny can make that argument, given the Mutual Legal Assistance protocols available for questioning in foreign territories and Sweden’s own Chief Supreme Court judge Stefan Lindskog stating there is no impediment in Swedish law to questioning Assange in London.
Hi Sterling,
Re the argument of “reasonable cause” for not answering bail, as you say:
The Ecuadorian government took two months to thoroughly analyse all of the evidence produced by Julian Assange in that regard, and they seemed to agree the evidence of potential ‘kidnapping’ to the US was compelling. I therefore assume that Assange has plenty of evidence available to put before the court in any future hearings about the bail issue. Some of it is alluded to in his recent affidavit to Sweden that initiated a formal police investigation into the disappearance of Wikileaks computers and property at Arlanda airport.
Arbed, we both agree that Sweden will send Assange off to the US to face trumped up charges and a fixed up trial. But it is extremely unlikely that a UK court will acknowledge the probability of US judicial malfeasance. They would be at great risk of offending the US in a very public way and I’d suggest that US-UK bilateral politics wouldn’t allow for that.
Assange would need to prove some or all of these things – that he is innocent of any wrongdoing; that the US has wrongfully produced charges; that an extradition will be sought by the US; that the Swedes will assent to the extradition request; that Assange will be improperly tried in the US and that he will be subjected to a disproportionately harsh sentence.
Further, if Assange cannot quash a Swedish extradition request, based on this defence and after already failing on technical grounds that the EAW was invalid, then he cannot present an effective defence against absconding. In other words, if he has a valid case for absconding, then he has a valid case for not being extradited to Sweden for the assault allegations nor to the US for espionage. I really do not believe there is any hope for this line of defence.
In any case, my point doesn’t primarily relate to the validity nor to the probability of success of any particular defence for absconding because that is unlikely to impact on the police’s intention to arrest, charge and detain Assange on this charge. The process of arresting, charging and detaining cannot be prevented by the mere possibility of a prosecution failure. And the police would not be liable for any misfeasance. There need only be sufficient proof that an offence occurred (which there is) and in the absence of any defence (which there wouldn’t be) a prosecution has a reasonable chance of success (which it would).
So, even in the event of Assange successfully defending against a charge for his absconding, he would still be arrested, charged with absconding and detained without means of continuing his work.
If he chooses to plead guilty to absconding, there may or may not be a custodial sentence but he will still have a criminal record. That might be the fastest way of getting out of custody but he would be inside for long enough for the UK to fix up charges and an extradition to the US or something else to keep Assange quagmired.
If he chooses to defend, then you could expect another protracted case that, again, keeps Assange quagmired and unable to work.
The point is, Assange is headed for gaol as soon as he is able to leave the Ecuadorean embassy. My fear is that his departure from the embassy and efforts to journey to a permanent safe port in order to continue his work is fraught with many dangers.