Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WikiLeaks' Julian Assange Asks UK Judge to Drop His Arrest Warrant (theguardian.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the courts-of-last-resort dept.

An anonymous reader quotes the Guardian: WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, has asked a UK court to drop the arrest warrant that prevents him from leaving the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has been living for five and a half years. Assange, 46, skipped bail to enter the embassy in 2012 in order to avoid extradition to Sweden over allegations of sexual assault and rape, which he denies... Mark Summers QC told senior district judge Emma Arbuthnot at Westminster magistrates court on Friday that now that the Swedish case had been dropped the warrant had "lost its purpose and its function". He said because Swedish extradition proceedings against Assange had come to an end, so had the life of the arrest warrant... Arbuthnot said she would give her judgment about the arrest warrant on 6 February.
Judge Arbuthnot said she'd rule only on the legal issue, though the court had also received evidence about medical problems which included "a terrible bad tooth, frozen shoulder and depression."

Representing the Crown Prosecution Service, Aaron Watkins it would be absurd for defendants to be "rewarded with effective immunity" simply for having evaded proceedings for long enough.

7 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. Breaking the law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Technically, he still broke laws in the UK by evading arrest.

    1. Re: Breaking the law. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Informative

      He was in the UK until he stepped over the threshold to the Ecuadorian embassy.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re: Breaking the law. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh I agree. My point is that people saying he 'was in Ecuador' are wrong. He was in the UK. I actually thought embassies were the territory of the country who run them but it turns out that is not the case

      The UK can't easily[1] arrest him in the Ecuadorian embassy but he's still in the UK.

      And he skipped bail, which is illegal. So if he came out he'd be immediately arrested.

      [1] There are various ways it could arrest him, but they probably mean severing diplomatic relations with Ecuador which the UK government in unwilling to do. In practice unless the embassy is closed and all the diplomats expelled he's probably safe from arrest. However accepting that is not the same as accepting that he can leave without being arrested.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  2. Statute of Limitations by chill · · Score: 3, Informative

    Representing the Crown Prosecution Service, Aaron Watkins it would be absurd for defendants to be "rewarded with effective immunity" simply for having evaded proceedings for long enough.

    Isn't that the way things normally happen, except for crimes like murder? In the United States it is called the Statute of Limitations.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Statute of Limitations by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Notice from your own link that the limitations apply to when a claim can be filed. To be clear the claim was filed against him a long time ago. Statute of Limitations no longer applies.

  3. Re:The UK arrest warrant is still valid. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Informative

    Skipping bail

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  4. Re:Assange's position is absurd by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;