Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Assange's Lawyers: Follow Swedish Law, Interrogate Him In the UK

Posted by samzenpus on from the testimony-in-the-UK dept.

concertina226 writes "Lawyers representing Julian Assange have demanded that he be questioned in London over rape and sexual molestation allegations. 'Prosecutor Marianne Ny must ... start treating him as everybody else who is under suspicion. Assuming that the prosecutor does not have a prejudiced opinion regarding the question of guilt, and is prepared to treat the different versions objectively, it is obvious that an interrogation with Julian Assange would benefit everybody, including the injured parties,' the lawyers wrote."

5 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. Re:or stop hiding... by geogob · · Score: 4, Informative

    My understanding was that there was no charge (or accusation) filed in Sweden. A compaint has been filed and he was wanted for interrogation over the filed complaint. Considering the deeper implications of travelling into Sweeden, I can understand his reluctance to do so, especially if he believes the complaint as no bases.

    Under the circumstances, en interrogation in England is the best solution for every parties. If, following the interrogation, formal charges are layed and is is accused of rape, his situation will change anyway and probably won't have the choice to face the charges there, regardless where he is.

  2. Re:or stop hiding... by AGMW · · Score: 4, Informative
    Not sure the UK would have extradited him to the US, and if they agreed to do so it would have been _years_ of court battles before it happened (see Gary McKinnon, amongst others), and yet Sweden can, and do, just hand people over to the US, so from the US's point of view, they'd likely get their hands on Assange far quicker if he could be convinced to pop back to Sweden - at least that seems to be the argument put forward by Assange. FWIW, and having read around the subject quite a bit, I tend to agree with him - Assange would be a fool to voluntarily go back to Sweden at this time.

    Turns out that, as he's in the Ecuadorian embassy, he's already escaped the UK ...

    Swedish police have visited other countries to 'interview' suspects in the past - including murderers - and presumably will do so in the future, so it does seem a little odd that they're so reluctant to pop over to the UK to interview a suspected 'rapist' who has offered to assist countless times.

    The whole issuing of the European Arrest Warrant in the first place is decidedly odd too ... and brings into question the general use of such warrants.

    --
    Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
    handmadehands.co.uk
  3. Re:or stop hiding... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, he's in the Ecuadorian embassy, which is on British soil. Britain does not regard foreign embassies as foreign soil (neither do most countries). The Geneva Convention prohibits forced entry into embassies and grants diplomatic immunity to anyone within them. This means that people in an embassy are still covered by the laws of the host country, but the only redress that the host nation has is to deport them as soon as they leave the embassy.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  4. Extradition from Sweden is easier by mal0rd · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm really surprised how many highly rated comments claim extradition from the UK would be easier. Extradition from Sweden to the US would almost certainly happen. Take for example this fact:

    Sweden has a bilateral agreement with the United States which would allow it to surrender Julian Assange without going through the traditional tests and standards of regular, lengthy extradition procedures.

    How could anyone reasonably expect him to willfully submit to that? It seems highly likely he would end up rotting in a US jail for life, unheard and unseen.

  5. Re:or stop hiding... by Grumbleduke · · Score: 5, Informative

    It seems that every time Assange comes up I have to paste this, so here goes. From the English High Court judgment, he is accused of 4 offences, as follows:

    1. Unlawful coercion

            On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm. Assange, by using violence. forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

    2. Sexual molestation

            On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

    3. Sexual molestation

            On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

    4. Rape

            On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep. was in a helpless state.

            It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange. who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used. still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity."

    So what he is is alleged to have done (whether or not he did so) is definitely rape under both Swedish and English law.