Slashdot Mirror

The rape allegation isn't about non consensual condom removal. It's that he work someone up having sex with them without a condom when they had previously consented to sex only with a condom.

https://www.theguardian.com/me...

The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".

Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

The police record of the interview with Assange in Stockhom deals only with the complaint made by Miss A. However, Assange and his lawyers have repeatedly stressed that he denies any kind of wrongdoing in relation to Miss W.

In submissions to the Swedish courts, they have argued that Miss W took the initiative in contacting Assange, that on her own account she willingly engaged in sexual activity in a cinema and voluntarily took him to her flat where, she agrees, they had consensual sex. They say that she never indicated to Assange that she did not want to have sex with him. They also say that in a text message to a friend, she never suggested she had been raped and claimed only to have been "half asleep".

Police spoke to Miss W's ex-boyfriend, who told them that in two and a half years they had never had sex without a condom because it was "unthinkable" for her. Miss W told police she went to a chemist to buy a morning-after pill and also went to hospital to be tested for STDs. Police statements record her contacting Assange to ask him to get a test and his refusing on the grounds that he did not have the time.

Despite Assange's lawyers making 'a sophisticated argument' that this would not be rape in the UK, UK courts repeatedly ruled it was :

http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/...

The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange "deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state". In this country that would amount to rape.

Which meant he could be extradited to Sweden. Once the Supreme Court ruled that and he'd run out of appeals he fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy to avoid extradition and remains there to this day.

Actually if he'd agreed to have an HIV test when Miss W asked him after the whole 'waking her up having unprotected sex' thing, he could probably have pre-empted her going to the police. But he said he was too busy because he's a massive asshole. So now he's stuck in the Embassy, probably indefinitely.

Of course there is that part where the so called "rape charges" where absolute bullshit.

Not true

https://www.newstatesman.com/d...

One: "The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law"
This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.

(See my post at Jack of Kent for further detail on this.)

http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/...

The Magistrates' Court ruled (emphasis added):

The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange "deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state". In this country that would amount to rape.

Just for the record, be very careful with women if you visit Sweden. Pressing false rape-charges is apparently a thing these days, even if you're not famous.

Bullshit. I've been to Sweden and dated women there. So long as you don't rape anyone you'll won't be charged with rape. What got Assange on trouble was that he was dating someone who consented to sex with a condom. They slept in the same bed. He woke her up having sex without a condom. She wanted him to get an aids test. He refused. She went to the police. He got charged with rape. And the UK courts ruled that since what he did in Sweden would count as rape if he had done it in the UK, he could be extradited. Then he skipped bail.

do you know the story?

He is in charged of rape, because he didn't use a condom on a occasional sex. That is a crime in Sweden and is equivalent to rape.

Actually, it's that the girl told him "no", then went to sleep, and then, knowing that he didn't have consent, he had sex with her while she was asleep. As Assange's own lawyer, Ben Emmerson, told the UK's High Court:

Emmerson went on to provide accounts of the two encounters in question which granted — at least for the purposes of today’s hearing — the validity of Assange’s accusers’ central claims. He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

That's also a crime under UK law as well as US law.

The girl don't even want any charge against him, but it is a public crime, so her opinion doesn't matter.

I have a question for you... Do you believe that, if a guy and girl have consensual sex, and a few days later, the girl has regrets, that travels back in time and it becomes rape? Or would you agree that the crime either occurs or doesn't occur at the moment the act of penetration occurs, and things that happen days later are irrelevant?

Courts in the UK looked at many questions, including would the allegation against Assange constitute rape in the UK, and did the prosecutor have the authority to issue the EAW. Here are extracts from the magistrate's ruling:

City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court
(Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)

The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange

Findings of facts and reasons

I make the following findings of fact from the evidence I have heard: ...

2. In Sweden, a person interrogated for rape is normally detained and held incommunicado during the process. These decisions are taken by a court.

....I heard live evidence from a recently retired Swedish prosecutor. Mr Alhem told me in there is nothing wrong with the EAW in this case. Similarly Brita Sundberg-Weitman said that Ms Ny is entitled to issue an EAW, although not on the facts as she understood them to be. Mr Hurtig is a Swedish lawyer. He may not be an expert on extradition but nevertheless he must have been well placed to discover whether Ms Ny had the appropriate authority, and he has not suggested otherwise. Ms Ny herself has made a statement saying she has the appropriate authority. .... I was also taken to original documents, including the Swedish Code of Statutes. Section 3 says, with reference to the EAW: “A Swedish arrest warrant for the purpose of criminal prosecution is issued by a prosecutor. ... Ms Ny’s details are provided and she signed the warrant. Even without the SOCA certification I have no doubt that Marianne Ny issued the warrant and is a “judicial authority which has the function of issuing arrest warrants”. ...

Assange: would the rape allegation also be rape under English law?

The Magistrates’ Court ruled (emphasis added):

The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.

----------

No, this doesn't work for you since you want him to be guilty before he's even moved.

No, I don't. I just think the question should be answered in court if the allegations are strong enough to support a trial.

If you are thoughtful, you may see some irony in this:

Sweden Angered By Julian Assange Fight, Says It Won't Extradite Him If He Faces Death Penalty

The rape allegation is the most serious and if proven in court could lead to up to four years in jail.

The lawyer for the two women stood by the allegations and criticised Assange for not coming back to be questioned.

"It's an abuse of the asylum instrument, the purpose of which is to protect people from persecution and torture ... It's not about that here," Claes Borgstrom told Reuters.

"He doesn't risk being handed over to the United States for torture or death penalty. He should be brought to justice in Sweden. This is completely absurd."

At the same time, Assange might not have that much to worry about, said

Really? Let me introduce you to the United Kingdom. It is a fairly small country, but it does have its charms.

I think it would be fairer to say that what Assange is alleged to have done would not qualify as rape in any first world country except Sweden

Your story is dated 2011, and I regret to inform you that the facts seem to have changed under your feet. There have been three court cases in the UK, going all the way to the UK Supreme Court, that have upheld the charges against him as rape even in the UK.

I also think it is a bit of a mistake to rely solely upon the views of Assange's barristers/lawyers even if the story was up to date.

Legal myths about the Assange extradition

Whenever the Julian Assange extradition comes up in the news, many of his supporters make various confident assertions about legal aspects of the case.

Some Assange supporters will maintain these contentions regardless of the law and the evidence – they are like “zombie facts” which stagger on even when shot down; but for anyone genuinely interested in getting at the truth, this quick post sets out five common misconceptions and some links to the relevant commentary and material. It complements a similar post on the leading Blog That Peter Wrote.

One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”

This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.

(See my post at Jack of Kent for further detail on this.)

Those two English court decisions have been backed by the UK Supreme Court. It's rape he is accused of, even if it was in the UK.

The prosecutors have changed from one that wasn't interested in pursuing investigation (a man) to one that was interested in pursuing investigation (a woman). Male prosecutors not interested in pursuing rape changes isn't a new problem in legal systems.

Can you back up this claim of the women changing their stories?

By the way, there is no question that the rape allegations meet the test to be considered rape under UK law and therefore subject to extradition.

Legal myths about the Assange extradition

[Add: this post is now supplemented by my more detailed post on the legal mythology of Julian Assange; also do see this excellent post by barrister Anya Palmer.]

Please note that particularly relevant in this case are the three English court rulings which are freely available on-line: Magistrates’ Court, High Court, and Supreme Court.

One: “The allegation of rape would not be rape under English law”

This is flatly untrue. The Assange legal team argued this twice before English courts, and twice the English courts ruled clearly that the allegation would also constitute rape under English law.

(See my post at Jack of Kent for further detail on this.)

It's shady, but for some reason, courts keep finding that it isn't shady enough to dismiss outright. Perhaps the situation isn't as shady as it has been made out, or maybe all these judges have been bought off.

And yes, he is accused of rape. Not "rape", not even "Swedish rape", but actual rape. "Failing to use a condom" is something of a simplification. The rape allegation concerns having sex with someone who was allegedly asleep at the time, without a condom, knowing full well that she wouldn't have consented to it based on previous incidents. Which part of that doesn't sound like rape?

One of the sexual molestation (or sexual assault) accusations involves allegedly ripping a condom during sex. The other involves him allegedly taking some of his clothes off and rubbing himself against the woman, again knowing that she didn't want to have any sort of sexual contact with him. The final count involves forcibly holding someone down and trying to have sex with them when they didn't want to (due to the lack of a condom).

Now... maybe the allegations aren't true, maybe there's evidence against it and so on, but that doesn't matter at this point (as those are issues for trial). He is accused of a fairly serious set of criminal offences, he is wanted for prosecution of those offences.

If you want some sources, this is an old article looking into the initial allegations, or you could just read the English High Court judgment.

Um, it wasn't a broken condom, it was no condom and in her sleep, and yes it was rape. The British Magistrate's court and High Court said so. Assange: would the rape allegation also be rape under English law?

It helps if I remember to post the links. Here's solicitor and legal blogger David Allen Green quoting Assange's legal team and the high court:
Assange: would the rape allegation also be rape under English law?

David Allen Green, Paul Chambers' solicitor, blogs for the New Statesman and under his own name at Jack of Kent and has written about the case a number of times. He has also discussed it on the Without Prejudice podcasts on a number of occasions, e.g. two days ago.