LONDON — Julian Assange won a major legal victory on Monday, when a Swedish court denied a request to detain the WikiLeaks founder over a sexual assault investigation dating back to 2010.
The ruling by the Uppsala District Court is a setback for prosecutors who were hoping to issue a European Arrest Warrant for Assange and request his extradition from the United Kingdom to Sweden.
The court agreed with prosecutors that Assange could pose a flight risk, but said detention would not be proportionate.
The Swedish rape investigation was the reason Assange spent almost seven years in self-imposed exile in London’s Ecuadorian Embassy. The WikiLeaks founder walked into the building in June 2012, shortly after losing a years-long extradition battle in the UK’s Supreme Court.
(INSERT: Call it “survival mode” or call it “refugee status”.
“Self-imposed exile” is inaccurate and misleading.
In August 2012, Assange was granted asylum by Ecuador due to fears of political persecution and possible extradition to the United States.[14]
Assange was 7 years in the Embassy to save his neck.)
He remained there until April this year, when his dramatic arrest prompted Swedish prosecutors to reopen the investigation last month.
Assange’s lawyer, Per E Samuelson, said Monday that his client denied the accusations and also argued that detention would be disproportionate. He added that Assange “has always wanted to cooperate” with the investigation.
The rape allegation was one of four sexual assault accusations that Assange faced after his visit to Sweden in August 2010. The case has never moved beyond the investigation stage and Assange has not been charged with any crimes in the country.
In August 2015, the statute of limitations on three of the four allegations lapsed. Under Swedish law, any charges related to the fourth allegation of rape must be made by August 2020.
(INSERT: I added the emphasis on the following statement.)
The probe into the alleged rape was suspended in 2017 as a result of Assange’s continued residence in the embassy.
(I don’t think so. Reference APPENDED: disclosures from 2013 and early 2018, should be applied but seem to have been forgotten? EXCERPT:
Cook reveals that Sweden actually wanted to drop the extradition case against Assange back in 2013. “Why was this not made public? Because Britain persuaded Sweden to pretend that they still wished to pursue the case” he said.
“According to a new, limited release of emails between officials, the Swedish director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny, wrote to Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service on October 18, 2013, warning that Swedish law would not allow the case for extradition to be continued,” he wrote. Cook further said that the CPS destroyed most of the emails relating to this correspondence, contrary to CPS protocols, and that only fragments remain.
In 2016, a UN working group ruled that Assange was being arbitrarily detained by the governments of Sweden and UK, and that he was entitled to his freedom of movement, and to compensation. Both British and Swedish authorities disregarded the ruling,
On Monday the judge said that in order to finish the investigation, the prosecutors could issue a European Investigation Order, which would make it possible for them to interview Assange and conclude the inquiry.
The prosecutor said the investigation will continue but didn’t give any details about the next steps.
Since his arrest in April, Assange has been sentenced to nearly a year in a UK prison over bail violations stemming from when he first entered the Ecuadorian embassy.
He is also facing a US extradition request.
Assange was indicted in the United States on one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. He was then charged with 17 counts under the Espionage Act for his role in receiving and publishing national defense information in concert with former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning
The Swedish court’s decision means the US will not have to compete with Sweden over which extradition request is given priority.
= = = = = = = =
APPENDED: disclosures from 2013 and early 2018, should be applied but seem to have been forgotten?
Two postings. The title of the first one tells the story. The EXCERPT from the second one is a summary.
- 2018-02-11 Sweden tried to drop Assange extradition in 2013, CPS emails show, The Guardian
- 2018-04-09 Punishment of Julian Assange is political, not legal Daily Mirror, UK
EXCERPT:
With Swedish prosecutors having last year formally dropped their investigation into rape allegations in Sweden, all that the UK authorities are left with to justify Assange’s arrest is the argument that he ‘skipped bail’ when he took refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy. Now, recent revelations of email correspondence between Sweden’s prosecutors and Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have added credence to the view that Assange’s plight has more to do with mala fide intentions of those who wish to see him punished, than any pursuit of justice. It appears that the last four years of Assange’s imprisonment in the embassy have been entirely unnecessary. “In fact, they depended on a legal charade” wrote Jonathan Cook in Counterpunch in February.
““His only ‘crime’ is that of a true journalist — telling the world the truths that people have a right to know”
Cook reveals that Sweden actually wanted to drop the extradition case against Assange back in 2013. “Why was this not made public? Because Britain persuaded Sweden to pretend that they still wished to pursue the case” he said.
“According to a new, limited release of emails between officials, the Swedish director of public prosecutions, Marianne Ny, wrote to Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service on October 18, 2013, warning that Swedish law would not allow the case for extradition to be continued,” he wrote. Cook further said that the CPS destroyed most of the emails relating to this correspondence, contrary to CPS protocols, and that only fragments remain.
In 2016, a UN working group ruled that Assange was being arbitrarily detained by the governments of Sweden and UK, and that he was entitled to his freedom of movement, and to compensation. Both British and Swedish authorities disregarded the ruling, with the British Foreign Secretary reported as saying it was “frankly ridiculous.”