Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange

Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange is a continuing legal proceeding in the United Kingdom, in which the Swedish Judicial Authority seeks to extradite WikiLeaks director Julian Assange to Sweden to face charges for alleged sexual offences.
Background
On 11 August 2010, Julian Assange arrived in Stockholm to speak at a seminar. On 30 August, Stockholm police questioned Assange.<ref namequestioned /> He denied the allegations, saying he had consensual sexual encounters with the two women.<ref nameDavies /><ref nameGuardCharges /><ref nametimeline/> Miss A spoke to a Swedish newspaper, saying: "In both cases, the sex had been consensual from the start but had eventually turned into abuse."<ref name=timeline/>
Arrest warrant
Claes Borgström, who represents the two women, appealed against the decision to drop the investigation. On 18 November 2010 prosecutor Marianne Ny asked the local district court for a warrant for Assange in order for him to be heard by the prosecutor.<ref name=SwedishWire /> The court ordered Assange detained ' in absentia.<ref nameExpressen /><ref nameLocal1 /> On appeal the Svea Court of Appeal upheld the warrant, on suspicion of "rape (less serious crime), unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation".<ref nameLocal2/><ref namechronology /> The Supreme Court of Sweden refused to consider a further appeal as no principle was at stake.<ref nameDodd /> On 6 December 2010, Scotland Yard notified Assange that a valid European arrest warrant had been received.<ref nameVerkaik />
Detention and bail
Assange presented himself to the Metropolitan Police the next morning and was remanded to London's Wandsworth Prison.<ref nameAddley2 /> On 16 December he was granted bail with a condition of residence at Ellingham Hall, Norfolk and required to wear an electronic tag. Bail was set at £240,000 surety with a deposit of £200,000 (312,700).<ref nameLocal3 />
On release Assange said "I hope to continue my work and continue to protest my innocence in this matter,"<ref name=ThomsonReuters /> and told the BBC, "This has been a very successful smear campaign and a very wrong one."<ref name=VancouverSun /> Assange claimed that the extradition proceedings to Sweden were "actually an attempt to get me into a jurisdiction which will then make it easier to extradite me to the US." Swedish prosecutors have denied the case has anything to do with WikiLeaks.<ref name=Local3 />
Extradition hearing
The extradition hearing took place on 7-8 and 11 February 2011 before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court in London.<ref nameSydney /><ref nameAddley3 /> Assange's representative at the extradition hearing was Geoffrey Robertson QC, a human rights specialist, and the prosecution was represented by Clare Montgomery QC.<ref namevoanews /> The hearing over-ran the two days originally allocated and an additional session took place on 11 February.<ref namehearing2 />
Arguments heard from the defence lawyers who represented Assange and the Crown Prosecution Service which represented the Swedish Judicial Authority concerned the following points:
* I Did the Swedish prosecutor have the authority to issue a European Arrest Warrant?
*II What is the nature of the extradition warrant - is it for prosecution or interrogation?
*III Are the crimes extradition crimes?
*IV Is there abuse of process?
One of the women told police that her sexual encounter with Assange involved "unlawful coercion",<ref nametimeline/> and that he deliberately broke a condom.<ref nameindia/> She said that Assange used his body weight to hold her down.<ref name=timeline/> During the extradition hearing in England, Robertson asserted that what is described in the police report is simply "the missionary position" and that she had made "no allegation that this was without her consent".<ref name=Addley1 />
Extradition decision
The outcome of the hearing was announced on 24 February 2011, when the extradition warrant was upheld.<ref nameDodd /><ref namehearing1 /><ref namerefused /><ref namejudiciary /> Senior District Judge Howard Riddle found against Assange on each of the main arguments against his extradition.<ref name=Coleman /> The judge said "as a matter of fact, and looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person (Mr Assange) passes the threshold of being an accused person and is wanted for prosecution."<ref name=Coleman /> Judge Riddell concluded: "I am satisfied that the specified offences are extradition offences."<ref name=Coleman />
Assange's solicitor Mark Stephens immediately announced that he would appeal the verdict at the London High Court.<ref nameVolkery /> He has seven days to lodge a notice of appeal and the hearing should take place within a period of 40 days after that.<ref nameColeman /> Assange dismissed the decision to extradite him, saying "It comes as no surprise but is nevertheless wrong. It comes as the result of a European arrest warrant system amok."<ref name=Addley4 />

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu