Misplaced Pages

Talk:Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:25, 21 August 2012 editBelorn (talk | contribs)1,802 edits →Names of victims: Policy gets interpreted, and the interpretation is decided by consensus, and consensus is reached by discussion.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:22, 12 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,847,833 editsm →top: blp=yes has priority over blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB 
(261 intermediate revisions by 58 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Old XfD multi|date=3 March 2011 (UTC)|result='''no consensus'''|page=Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange}}
{{Old XfD multi|date=12 March 2011 (UTC)|result='''speedy keep - withdrawn'''|page=Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange}}
{{WikiProject banner shell| blp=yes|class=C|listas=Assange, Julian, Swedish Judicial Authority V|1=
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=low|law=yes|law-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Ecuador|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Sweden|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=low}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 2 |counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(90d) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=c|listas=Assange, Julian, Swedish Judicial Authority V}}
{{WikiProject International relations|class=c|importance=low|law=yes}}
{{WikiProject Gender Studies|class=c|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Sweden|class=c|importance=mid}}}}
{{Old AfD multi| date = 3 March 2011 (UTC) | result = '''no consensus''' | page = Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange }}
{{Old AfD multi| date = 12 March 2011 (UTC) | result = '''speedy keep - withdrawn''' | page = Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange }}
{{sub judice UK}}
{{archives|auto=long|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=3|units=months}}

== Exact charges ==

At this source:, I saw the charges described as "Mr Assange did not immediately inform the complainants that a condom had split or that he was not wearing a condom". I included this information in the article, but this was reverted by ] for the reason "Not the only 'misconduct' alleged". So what are the other misconducts alleged and what are the sources?--] (]) 12:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
:The source you provide is clearly labelled "WikiLeaks: statement in full", a statement from an involved party, and as such cannot be taken as authoritative. As to the other issues of misconduct, I will have to find the sources, though they were provided in earlier versions of this article. It is possible that some of these alleged issues of misconduct may not necessarily come to trial, but it is simply false to state that they were not 'alleged'. ] (]) 13:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
::Just give more details and source them, otherwise the only detailed account is the one fromn the Telegraph. --] (]) 14:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
:::The extend to which we go into detail about the allegations has already been debated extensively (see above, and in the archives). The Telegraph account is totally unsuitable as a source for anything but the opinions of its providers, so if you want the article to go into more detail about the specifics of the allegations, I suggest that ''you'' find proper sources, and then explain on this talk page why you think our earlier decision to cut the article back to the reportable facts, rather than speculation and spin, needs revision. ] (]) 15:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
:: The four allegation are set out in the European arrest warrant (I have repeatedly posted a link to it, don't know whether it is still there or has been removed) and they are also described in more detail in the extradition ruling (read from "There are four allegations as set out in box (e) of the warrant"). The full text of the extradition ruling can be found when you follow the external link at the end of the article. ] (]) 10:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Also, it might be helpful to remind the editor above that Sweden hasn't really decided what they are going to charge Assange with, and their legal system works differently than the English/British system. -- ] (]) 13:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::Good to remind editors of the fact that this case is determined by Swedish law, EU law and UK law - NOT by a combination of US/AUS/UK law, as illustrated by this quote from the excellent report on the extradition appeal hearing by Robert Booth in the Guardian: "Among other things, the judges are being taken on a tour of variation in criminal procedure in the EU and in particular ''when a charge is firm enough for a warrant to apply; how different states use different authorities to press charges; and language, for example whether suspicion, accused and other terms mean the same thing in different languages in different systems. The complexity of all this is a feature of EU law, it seems: the clash and confusion with member states' different systems when the intent of a single EU system was to simplify. Even the judges seem to be feeling overwhelmed by the range of variation between say Belgium, France and Germany''. So it is no surprise that Assange's destiny is becoming no more clear as the case winds on". ] (]) 12:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The allegations are detailed in (sourced in the page) as:
:The two go out for dinner, return to the apartment and have sex during which a condom breaks. She would later tell police that Assange used his body weight to hold her down during sex and that she was a victim of "unlawful coercion."
and
:Miss W later tells police that Assange that morning had unprotected sex with her while she was still asleep.
Is that sourced enough to be in the article? --] (]) 15:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe the police report is . Is something like this usable as reference? Key paragraphs:

:They sat on the bed and talked, and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again and she suddenly discovered that he had placed the condom only over the head of his penis; but she let it be. They dozed off and she awoke and felt him penetrating her. She immediately asked, “Are you wearing anything?”, to which he replied, “You”. She said to him: “You better don’t have HIV”, and he replied, “Of course not”. “She felt that it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She didn’t have the energy to tell him one more time. She had gone on and on about condoms all night long. She has never had unprotected sex before. He said he wanted to come inside her; he did not say when he did, but he did it. A lot ran out of her afterward.

:...

:After a moment, Assange asked Anna what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. Anna then told him that she wanted him to wear a condom before he came in her. At that, Assange released Anna’s arms and put on a condom that Anna fetched for him. Anna sensed a strong unspoken reluctance by Assange to use a condom, as a result of which she had a feeling that he had not put on the condom that he had been given. She therefore reached down her hand to Assange's penis in order to ensure that he had really put on the condom. She felt that the rim of the condom was where it should be, at the base of Assange's penis. Anna and Assange resumed having sex and Anna says that she thought that she “just wanted to get it over with”.

:After a short while, Anna notes that Assange withdraws from her and begins to adjust the condom. Judging from the sound, according to Anna, it seemed that Assange removed the condom. He entered her again and continued the copulation. Anna once again handled his penis and, as before, felt the rim of the condom at the base of the penis; she therefore let him continue.

:Shortly thereafter, Assange ejaculated inside her and then withdrew. When Assange removed the condom from his penis, Anna saw that it did not contain any semen. When Anna began to move her body she noticed that something “ran” out of her vagina. Anna understood rather quickly that it must be Assange's semen. She pointed this out to Assange, but he denied it and replied that it was only her own wetness. Anna is convinced that when he withdrew from her the first time, Assange deliberately broke the condom at its tip and then continued copulating to ejaculation. To my question Anna replies she did not look closely at the condom in order to see if it was broken in the way that she suspected; but she believes that she still has the condom at home and will check to see. She also states that the bed sheets used on this occasion are still lying unwashed in her hamper.

Surely, the greatest crime in Sweden's history. ] (]) 16:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

== Actual claims ==

The actual claims of "misconduct", brought by these women, need to be in the article. I see that someone above attempted to do just this, and more, but was reverted and perhaps gave up. It is an eyesore for the article to not have this information in it. Hopefully someone with more time than I have can rectify this. ] (]) 16:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
:Seriously, wtf? I'm going to root around in the article history for something to be restored. ] (]) 22:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
A useful source: ] (]) 22:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
::You got it quite wrong, of course: the actual claims in THIS case, heard in the UK, where Assange lost his appeal on four counts today, are about the issue of warrant by the Swedish authority, double criminality, proportionality and whether the alleged conduct is an offense. ] (]) 10:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

== Article Title ==

I believe the article title "Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange" does not satisfy naming conventions and can be improved to something like "Julian Assange Court Case 2011" or something similar. --] (]) 17:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

:The article name has been discussed previously (see archives). AS far as I'm aware the 'X v Y' convention is usual for articles of this type. ] (]) 17:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Was the fact that the distinction between a "Judicial" authority and a "Prosecution Authority" is the very point of the UK Supreme Court case raised? Why would this article use the name "Swedish Judicial Authority" when the party to the case (as reflected in the name of the case) is the "Swedish Prosecution Authority" - this matters a lot. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Supreme Court judges sitting ==

Where does the list of the seven judges come from? Only four judges are cited . ] (]) 21:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
:The SC website . ] (]) 21:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

== Names of victims ==

I have once again removed the names of the involved women. The previous consensus on the talk page has been that adding the names violates BLP. Please discuss here before adding names again.
] (]) 14:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:I'd like to mention that I disagree with this "consensus". ] argues the case better than I could: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/05/julian-assange-sex-crimes-anonymity ] (]) 19:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
::We are not naming the victims at this time - as per the quality sources (]'s opinionated input is not one of them) - such as the BBC who have a very good record of following ] - - please don't see this comment as an opportunity to post sources that do name them - we are not naming them - if and when a case actually occurs we can look at it again - <font color="purple">]</font><font color="orange">really</font><font color="red">]</font> 19:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:::These cases are public and assanges name is well known, why should not these women be named? Also the crime is alleged until proved otherwise. I think it's in interest of clean and fair trial to name both sides. It's not a secret either, so.. why not. T.P--] (]) 20:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
::::This has been repeatedly discussed in the past - see the archives. Per long-established ] policy, the consensus is that we won't name the alleged victims in this article. As for 'a clean and fair trial', the contents of our article are irrelevant - it wouldn't be presented as evidence in any trial, though at the moment, there is no decision on whether there will even be one. ] (]) 21:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

::Just thought I'd give some reasoning for never mentioning the victims of Rape. The names of rape victims are never given out because it otherwise causes women to hardly ever report the crime. Rape is a massively undereported crime and the main reason for the lack of reporting was due to the stigma/shame/humiliation/embarassment that comes when mentioning it. It is hard enough for women to report this crime to a female police-officer with anominity let alone to report it and have their name freely available. This is the reasoning behind why names are not given for this crime, something that Naomi completely forgets to mention (and would rather randomly blame on men being sexist). I do agree that this should also go towards the accused but thats not for a wikipedia talk article to discuss. Long Story short, if we start posting the names of victims than you are contributing to the reason why women don't report Rape. ] (]) 10:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

::: "if we start posting the names of victims than you are contributing to the reason why women don't report Rape" -- that may or may not be the case, but it's irrelevant. Misplaced Pages's purpose is to be a compendium of human knowledge, not to encourage people to report crimes. -- ] (]) 23:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

::::No, Misplaced Pages's purpose (per ]) is to be an encyclopedia. While some human knowledge is certainly grist for inclusion, not all of it is. In this case, the names of the alleged victims is not appropriate for inclusion. ] (]) 23:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::] says:
:::::"Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."

:::::I think ] doesn't require anonymity because:

:::::(1) The names have been widely disseminated.


{{Archives|auto=long|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=3|units=months}}
:::::(2) Omitting it results in a significant loss of context.


== Assange left Sweden in September 2010 and was arrested in his absence the same day ? ==
:::::They should be included because, according to many ], all of which have named the accusers, "Accuser 1"


‘In August 2010, when the rape claims were first made, Assange voluntarily remained in Sweden and presented himself to the police. After assessing the evidence, the chief prosecutor said “no crime” had been committed and that the file would be “closed.”’
:::::(1) worked with CIA-sponsored anti-Castro organizations in Cuba.


‘The case against Assange was reopened a month later by a different local prosecutor. From 8 to 14 September, Assange repeatedly offered to be questioned but no interview was arranged. The prosecutor advised Assange on 15 September that he was free to leave Sweden, which he did.’
:::::(2) posted a blog entry advocating revenge when a man cheats on her. I think that also raises legitimate suspicions. Does anybody disagree?


https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/assange-swedes-uk-obstructed-sex-crime-investigation/ <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::(3) tweeted messages after the supposed rape that indicated she was happy about her relationship with Assange. She didn't accuse him of rape until she found out that he had sex with "Accuser 2".


== Assange arrested in Sweden? ==
:::::I think each of these charges raise legitimate suspicions, and together they provide context. "Victim 1" might have a political or personal motivation to punish Assange and have him extradited to the U.S. It's not certain, but neither are any of the charges against Assange. A reader must know these facts in order to evaluate the credibility of the charges against Assange.


I removed the following
:::::Can somebody give me a good statement of why they disagree with those 3 points? --] (]) 18:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
:Later that day, the duty prosecutor ordered the arrest of Julian Assange on the suspicion of rape and molestation.<ref name="Swedish Prosecution Authority"/>
If there was an order, I am pretty sure Assange was not actually arrested, and talked to the police in Sweden some days later.
The referenced link is dead.
So some research is required if this is to go back in, was he actually arrested or not?


{{reflist-talk}}
::::::Where is the consensus that we won't name the alleged victims in this article? I don't see it here, or in the archives. I see disagreement. Can you give me a link to the place that found consensus? --] (]) 18:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}
] is policy. Policy overrides consensus unless there is consensus to change the policy. ] (]) 18:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
:Someone made a claim that there was consensus. If there is, I want to see the link to the consensus. Is there a consensus? Does everybody agree that there is no consensus? --] (]) 19:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
::. ] (]) 19:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Obviously, any claim of a consensus is complete nonsense - if there was a consensus, there wouldn't be discussion about it with many editors expressing dissenting views to the so-called consensus. ] (]) 07:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
:The discussion is good. Policy gets interpreted, and the interpretation is decided by consensus, and consensus is reached by discussion. Aprock, if you can point in the policy of a black and white rule that, in a obvious and clear way forbids the names, please provide it. ] (]) 13:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


== Prosecutor Ny's abuse of process// extradition warrant. ==
==House Arrest/bail conditions==
I notice that this article describes Mr Assange as being on conditional bail rather than house arrest. This is current being discussed on the about Mr Assange. Just wondering if this discussion has been had here already, and settled. Would possibly save time, rather than rehashing it it it's already been hashed. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


<P>"the Swedish authorities have never explained why they refuse to give Assange a guarantee that they will not extradite him" (a red herring that the Assange camp continues to spread, explained numerous times) <P>
== Claes Borgström ==
Sources: <P>
One reference is a Nordic Page and the other is the Guardian. <P>
"This week, Amnesty International called on Sweden to provide a guarantee that if Assange travelled there to answer questions over the sex-crime allegations, he would not be sent on to the US for charges connected to WikiLeaks' publication of thousands of US diplomatic and military cables"<P>
There was a blase response from Sweden<P>
"A spokeswoman for the Swedish foreign ministry said the country's legislation did not allow any judicial decision like extradition to be predetermined." <P>
Sweden's response would appear to be absolute nonsense. Immunities from prosecution are routinely handed out to all sorts of criminals in exchange for example information or testimony. In Assange's case despite already having Assange's statement, prosecutor Ny unreasonably issued an extradition process to drag Assange back to "Sweden" for "questioning". (Eventually a Swedish court ruled Assange's presence in Sweden was unnecessary for Ny's investigation)<P>
Ny's unwarranted actions further fueled Assange's well documented and subsequently justified fears that he was being persecuted. Sweden has done nothing to dispel the allegation that Ny conspired to have Assange extradited to face the rage of the United States for publishing evidence leaked largely by it own appalled citizens.<P>
Prosecutor Ny is at the center of the extradition process. That an English court upheld Ny's warrant to extradite Assange when his presence in Sweden was unnecessary for Ny's investigation brings the English Courts into disrepute. Its a basic legal principle that a court can not order an unnecessary act<P>
Lets look at a hypothetical situation.<P>
The English Crown Prosecution Service resists Ny's warrant because it clearly unnecessary to have Assange present in Sweden to further Ny's investigation. <P>
Does this cause a diplomatic incident? No It is the just application of law.<P>
Does this prevent Ny from investigating Assange. No. In fact it expedites Ny's investigation by removing an unnecessary process.<P>
Does this prevent Ny from charging Assange? No Nye already has Assange's police statement and many others and can charge him in absentia.<P>
Does this prevent the United States from extraditing Assange. No. The USA has an extradition treaty with the UK and is using it.<P>
Does this allow Assange freedom and procedural justice? Yes. Assange can conduct his business and defend himself against persecution.<P>
Does this cost the UK taxpayers millions of dollars? No. It is unlikely this course of action would cost much at all.<P>
Does this deny alleged victims justice. No. Assange can be criminally charged or civil action taken against him.<P>
Is anyone in any way hindered. Not significantly. Assange may still need to attend court. Ny has her nose put out of joint.<P>
Is this a proper course of action for English Crown prosecutors. Yes. Prosecutors are officers of the court that are bound to assist the court act judicially. Court Officers are liable for the consequences of errors in law. <P>


<P> I just cannot see a valid reason for Ny issuing a warrant to extradite Assange who had already made his statement. Assange had a Swedish lawyer and would not be making further admissions. Short of torture or some sort of hypnotism to extract a confession what could be gained. I suppose there was the possibility of trying on some sort of honey trap operation to ensnare Assange or laying bogus charges of some sort as police forces often do. Then again I guess Ny may just have wanted to meet the famous Julian Assange. Maybe Ny thought she could seduce Assange or something similar. Whatever her reasons, it was a crazy thing for Ny to do resulting in a very disturbing and successful abuse of process.
Is he still representing the two women? My understanding was that one of the women has stated she doesn't want to participate (including making any type of witness statements) in this case. ] (]) 03:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


:None of this is in the article, which is odd. Also, not a word about Sweden justice dropping the charges and in which circumstances. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Rape? ==
So it isn't rape by any definition in the English language or according to any law of Australia, the United States of America, any Commonwealth country or any EU member that isn't Sweden?


== Not minor edit ==
And that even as "sexual molestation" goes, it is a factual case that these women have stated they consented to the sex and at no point did anything occur that could be classified as sexual molestation or sexual assault in any Western nation?


My edit shows as minor but that is wrong. I added text and citations and moved text to fix timeline order. It was not a minor edit sorry ] (]) 21:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Just clearing this up for the article. ] (]) 04:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane


== BLP: Charges vs allegations ==
:The rape allegation is concerning Assange engaging nonconsensual sex with a sleeping woman. This is considered rape in many, but not all, countries. ] (]) 20:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


The wording in this article stated that there were legal ]s against Assange; this was a ] violation. Overall, the sources do not support the claim that charges were filed: there were allegations and an arrest warrant. (Some sources are sloppy and write "charges".)
::The English court, which Assange asked to rule on this, has stated that: "Thus, if the question is whether what is set out in the EAW is an offence under the law of England and Wales, then it is in our view clear that it was" - para 91 - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
::There's a lot more detail in the judgement, but the point is incontrovertible: Assange's alleged crimes meet the requirements of dual criminality.] (]) 05:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Dave
:::I'd just like to echo this point - the comments by the IP that started this section are incorrect. As the courts have confirmed, the allegations against Assange would, if true, constitute rape under English law. ] (]) 09:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


I have {{diff|Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority|1230902978|1227753085|corrected these BLP violations}}.
== Assange's admissions ==


I've left in a quote from Assange in his initial reaction, in which he apparently thought that charges had been filed.
Is it NPOV to have a section detailing the facts of the alleged offences which Assange has stipulated are true? In the English court hearings over the EAW, he's made, under oath, a wealth of statements, none of which seem to be represented here. Is this an appropriate article? Should it be renamed to take into account the English legal challenges Assange has presented? ] (]) 05:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Dave


I've left in the loose usage of the word "charge" in the ''United Nations finding'' section on ]. In this case, e.g. {{tq|The UK and Swedish governments denied the charge of detaining Assange arbitrarily}} it's clear that there is no criminal charge against two governments, since governments are (almost) never charged with criminal actions (the ] can in principle be charged against governments, and there are some court cases against govts, but that's clearly not the case here). Moreover, governments are not individuals. So the BLP risk seems low in this section. But if someone wants to improve the wording, that probably would be possible. ] (]) 10:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
:It may or may not be NPOV. But is it necessary? This is an encyclopaedia, not a court record. We don't include every last detail. As for renaming the article, you don't give us any indication of what you are suggesting it should be renamed as. ] (]) 06:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:22, 12 November 2024

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 3 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep - withdrawn.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
WikiProject iconInternational relations: Law Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconGender studies Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconLaw Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEcuador Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ecuador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ecuador on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EcuadorWikipedia:WikiProject EcuadorTemplate:WikiProject EcuadorEcuador
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSweden Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited Kingdom Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Assange left Sweden in September 2010 and was arrested in his absence the same day ?

‘In August 2010, when the rape claims were first made, Assange voluntarily remained in Sweden and presented himself to the police. After assessing the evidence, the chief prosecutor said “no crime” had been committed and that the file would be “closed.”’

‘The case against Assange was reopened a month later by a different local prosecutor. From 8 to 14 September, Assange repeatedly offered to be questioned but no interview was arranged. The prosecutor advised Assange on 15 September that he was free to leave Sweden, which he did.’

https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/assange-swedes-uk-obstructed-sex-crime-investigation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.107.91 (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Assange arrested in Sweden?

I removed the following

Later that day, the duty prosecutor ordered the arrest of Julian Assange on the suspicion of rape and molestation.

If there was an order, I am pretty sure Assange was not actually arrested, and talked to the police in Sweden some days later. The referenced link is dead. So some research is required if this is to go back in, was he actually arrested or not?

References

  1. Cite error: The named reference Swedish Prosecution Authority was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Prosecutor Ny's abuse of process// extradition warrant.

"the Swedish authorities have never explained why they refuse to give Assange a guarantee that they will not extradite him" (a red herring that the Assange camp continues to spread, explained numerous times)

Sources: explained numerous

One reference is a Nordic Page and the other is the Guardian.

"This week, Amnesty International called on Sweden to provide a guarantee that if Assange travelled there to answer questions over the sex-crime allegations, he would not be sent on to the US for charges connected to WikiLeaks' publication of thousands of US diplomatic and military cables"

There was a blase response from Sweden

"A spokeswoman for the Swedish foreign ministry said the country's legislation did not allow any judicial decision like extradition to be predetermined."

Sweden's response would appear to be absolute nonsense. Immunities from prosecution are routinely handed out to all sorts of criminals in exchange for example information or testimony. In Assange's case despite already having Assange's statement, prosecutor Ny unreasonably issued an extradition process to drag Assange back to "Sweden" for "questioning". (Eventually a Swedish court ruled Assange's presence in Sweden was unnecessary for Ny's investigation)

Ny's unwarranted actions further fueled Assange's well documented and subsequently justified fears that he was being persecuted. Sweden has done nothing to dispel the allegation that Ny conspired to have Assange extradited to face the rage of the United States for publishing evidence leaked largely by it own appalled citizens.

Prosecutor Ny is at the center of the extradition process. That an English court upheld Ny's warrant to extradite Assange when his presence in Sweden was unnecessary for Ny's investigation brings the English Courts into disrepute. Its a basic legal principle that a court can not order an unnecessary act

Lets look at a hypothetical situation.

The English Crown Prosecution Service resists Ny's warrant because it clearly unnecessary to have Assange present in Sweden to further Ny's investigation.

Does this cause a diplomatic incident? No It is the just application of law.

Does this prevent Ny from investigating Assange. No. In fact it expedites Ny's investigation by removing an unnecessary process.

Does this prevent Ny from charging Assange? No Nye already has Assange's police statement and many others and can charge him in absentia.

Does this prevent the United States from extraditing Assange. No. The USA has an extradition treaty with the UK and is using it.

Does this allow Assange freedom and procedural justice? Yes. Assange can conduct his business and defend himself against persecution.

Does this cost the UK taxpayers millions of dollars? No. It is unlikely this course of action would cost much at all.

Does this deny alleged victims justice. No. Assange can be criminally charged or civil action taken against him.

Is anyone in any way hindered. Not significantly. Assange may still need to attend court. Ny has her nose put out of joint.

Is this a proper course of action for English Crown prosecutors. Yes. Prosecutors are officers of the court that are bound to assist the court act judicially. Court Officers are liable for the consequences of errors in law.

I just cannot see a valid reason for Ny issuing a warrant to extradite Assange who had already made his statement. Assange had a Swedish lawyer and would not be making further admissions. Short of torture or some sort of hypnotism to extract a confession what could be gained. I suppose there was the possibility of trying on some sort of honey trap operation to ensnare Assange or laying bogus charges of some sort as police forces often do. Then again I guess Ny may just have wanted to meet the famous Julian Assange. Maybe Ny thought she could seduce Assange or something similar. Whatever her reasons, it was a crazy thing for Ny to do resulting in a very disturbing and successful abuse of process.

None of this is in the article, which is odd. Also, not a word about Sweden justice dropping the charges and in which circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.125.155 (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Not minor edit

My edit shows as minor but that is wrong. I added text and citations and moved text to fix timeline order. It was not a minor edit sorry Softlem (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

BLP: Charges vs allegations

The wording in this article stated that there were legal (criminal) charges against Assange; this was a WP:BLP violation. Overall, the sources do not support the claim that charges were filed: there were allegations and an arrest warrant. (Some sources are sloppy and write "charges".)

I have corrected these BLP violations.

I've left in a quote from Assange in his initial reaction, in which he apparently thought that charges had been filed.

I've left in the loose usage of the word "charge" in the United Nations finding section on arbitrary detention. In this case, e.g. The UK and Swedish governments denied the charge of detaining Assange arbitrarily it's clear that there is no criminal charge against two governments, since governments are (almost) never charged with criminal actions (the crime of aggression can in principle be charged against governments, and there are some court cases against govts, but that's clearly not the case here). Moreover, governments are not individuals. So the BLP risk seems low in this section. But if someone wants to improve the wording, that probably would be possible. Boud (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Categories: