Julian Assange

Lawyer complaining that his client, who has lots of supporters and just brazenly broken the rules of this bail, will be locked up for a while in Sweden. Given that under flight risk in dictionaries there is now a picture of assange one would assume they are being sure he does not skip off to the nearest embassy with his sleeping bag.

I don't think you read the article in that link.

I don't think you read the article in that link.

Detaining and isolating a suspect is appropriate where the crime is sufficiently grave and the indication of guilt clear. Treating Anders Breivikin this way is the right thing to do, for instance.

The allegations against Assange, in contrast, are not nearly so serious

Going into the level of the allegations not the likelihood that the suspect will arrive with a list of embassies and taxi numbers. Add onto that the fact that they are having to drag him out of the UK kicking and screaming rather than going voluntarily and I find it unsurprising they will detain him.

Going into the level of the allegations not the likelihood that the suspect will arrive with a list of embassies and taxi numbers. Add onto that the fact that they are having to drag him out of the UK kicking and screaming rather than going voluntarily and I find it unsurprising they will detain him.

If you read the piece, it's actually about the system itself, not about its application to one or to notorious cases.

If you read the piece, it's actually about the system itself, not about its application to one or to notorious cases.

It is not up to the suspect to dictate how and investigation takes place. Assange may have wanted them to come to London and interview him but he is not in the position to dictate where he is interviewed. In any other case bar this one the route would have been, country wanting to talk to suspect issue warrant, other country detains suspect, short court case to confirm warrant valid, suspect gets sent on for questioning. The only reason the Assange case has been so dragged out is that he is trying absolutely every tactic to stop being sent to Sweden and has foolish rich supporters who are prepared to pay his legal fees to do so.

It is not up to the suspect to dictate how and investigation takes place. Assange may have wanted them to come to London and interview him but he is not in the position to dictate where he is interviewed. In any other case bar this one the route would have been, country wanting to talk to suspect issue warrant, other country detains suspect, short court case to confirm warrant valid, suspect gets sent on for questioning. The only reason the Assange case has been so dragged out is that he is trying absolutely every tactic to stop being sent to Sweden and has foolish rich supporters who are prepared to pay his legal fees to do so.

Yes, but about the Swedish judicial system's attitude to pre-trial detainees, which is what the article is about?

Yes, but about the Swedish judicial system's attitude to pre-trial detainees, which is what the article is about?

In most cases it is probably overkill but for Assange given his determined attempts to avoid going I think its justified. Also article goes on about:

He would happily have presented himself for interrogation and, had the case gone to trial, willingly returned to Sweden to face charges.

The prosecutor is at liberty to withdraw the arrest warrant and lift the detention order, and a hearing in Sweden could be arranged very quickly.

Neither of which appear to fit in with what we know of Assange. If he was willing to return to Sweden to face charges why was he not willing to return to be questioned? Surely if he is sent back they are not going to have him sitting in the cells for months before talking to him they will interview him almost as soon as he gets there and then decide to charge him or not.

In most cases it is probably overkill but for Assange given his determined attempts to avoid going I think its justified. Also article goes on about:

 

 

 

Neither of which appear to fit in with what we know of Assange. If he was willing to return to Sweden to face charges why was he not willing to return to be questioned? Surely if he is sent back they are not going to have him sitting in the cells for months before talking to him they will interview him almost as soon as he gets there and then decide to charge him or not.

So a routine denial of a basic right is reduced to 'probably overkill'?

So a routine denial of a basic right is reduced to 'probably overkill'?

In this country if someone is either unable to post bail or considered either too dangerous or a flight risk they are locked up. If he is charged and is considered a flight risk then he would probably be locked up on the UK as well. You have to balance peoples rights against the risk that they will try to leg it before their trial. Possibly Sweden go a bit further than the UK in how often they lock people up but really its not that much more different to how the UK treat such people.

Also where in the whole saga has this issue of the way Sweden treat pretrial suspects been raised by his side? In my mind it's just another reason being used to explain why he did not go back when at the time it was not even mentioned.

In this country if someone is either unable to post bail or considered either too dangerous or a flight risk they are locked up. If he is charged and is considered a flight risk then he would probably be locked up on the UK as well. You have to balance peoples rights against the risk that they will try to leg it before their trial. Possibly Sweden go a bit further than the UK in how often they lock people up but really its not that much more different to how the UK treat such people.

 

Also where in the whole saga has this issue of the way Sweden treat pretrial suspects been raised by his side? In my mind it's just another reason being used to explain why he did not go back when at the time it was not even mentioned.

That's still not what's at issue, though. It's the routine use of solitary confinement among pre-trial detainees.

What is going on with this?! Nothing has been said for days. How long can it drag on for?

That's still not what's at issue, though. It's the routine use of solitary confinement among pre-trial detainees.

Which, as I said above, has not until now been used as a reason why Assange should not be extradited. Also the article points out that:

The chief prosecutor has said that Assange will not be held in isolation.

 

so he would be held in jail, not in solitary confinement, just like anyone considered too much of a risk to let out on bail.

What is going on with this?! Nothing has been said for days. How long can it drag on for?

Either he is not granted asylum and he is put on the doorstep and arrested or he is granted asylum but that does not stop him being arrested as soon as he leaves the embassy so he would have to stay there indefinitely.

Which, as I said above, has not until now been used as a reason why Assange should not be extradited. Also the article points out that:

 

 

 

so he would be held in jail, not in solitary confinement, just like anyone considered too much of a risk to let out on bail.

I'd suggest the reason for an edit wouldn't be 'misquote' but selective quoting. The sentence after the chief prosecutor one is surely worth including.

Either he is not granted asylum and he is put on the doorstep and arrested or he is granted asylum but that does not stop him being arrested as soon as he leaves the embassy so he would have to stay there indefinitely.

How about if he left in an embassy car that had diplomatic protection? Could he be arrested then?

How about if he was granted a diplomatic passport?

I'd suggest the reason for an edit wouldn't be 'misquote' but selective quoting. The sentence after the chief prosecutor one is surely worth including.

The reason for the 'misquote' edit was that I had initially typed my comment in the quote section and moved it out.

Anyway my other gripe with that article is the bit at the end where the lawyer implies that because he would be locked up it would be seen as a sign of guilt. You can't complain that locking up pretrial suspects is a common occurrence and then say that the way Assange would be treated implies anything as if you assume locking him up implies guilt then the same applies to every defendant treated that way in Sweden. It's like saying that in the UK most people waiting trial as implied to be innocent because they are usually out on bail. Also it is rather insulting to who ever it is who decided if he is guilty in the court case (not sure if judge or jury) as they should, and one assumes will, take account only of the evidence.

How about if he left in an embassy car that had diplomatic protection? Could he be arrested then?

 

How about if he was granted a diplomatic passport?

The quotes I have seen imply there are no options (besides sneaking past the police) that would allow him to walk out of the embassy and not get arrested.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/julian-assange-news-live-wikileaks-founder-arrested-and-removed-from-ecuadorean-embassy-a4115136.html