Ecuador suggests transferring Assange to its embassy in Sweden so he can be questioned

[Judi Lynn]

turday, September 22nd 2012- 05:24 UTC
Ecuador suggests transferring Assange to its embassy in Sweden so he can be questioned

Ecuador proposed on Friday transferring Wikileaks founder Julian Assange from its embassy in London where he has taken refuge to that in Sweden where he is a suspect of sex related crimes. However this depends on Britain and there has been no official reaction to the proposal.

Foreign minister Ricardo Patiño told reporters that there are several possibilities to resolve the standoff with Britain over Assange, including “that his statement be taken in our embassy in London or that Ecuador get authorization to transfer him, if necessary, to our embassy in Sweden so that the case can proceed there with the protection of Ecuador and meeting the needs of Swedish justice”.

Assange has been holed up in Ecuador's embassy in London since June 19, seeking to avoid extradition to Sweden for questioning over sex crimes allegations. Assange claims the Swedish sex case is part of plot to make him stand trial in the United States over his work with Wikileaks, which has published large troves of secret US documents. Sweden and Washington reject the claim.

Ecuador granted the Wikileaks founder political asylum on Aug. 15, but British authorities have repeatedly warned they will arrest him if he steps foot outside the diplomatic mission.

More:
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/09/22/ecuador-suggests-transferring-assange-to-its-embassy-in-sweden-so-he-can-be-questioned

[dipsydoodle]

1. Sounds a good solution

[asjr]

2. Assange can be glad he is not a basketball. He

would be tossed around all over the planet.

[struggle4progress]

3. There's a two-year-old Swedish court order to arrest him; and the UK courts have found that

the Swedish prosecutors want him back in Swedish so they can prosecute him

Bottom line: Don't expect Sweden or the UK to give this silly proposal traction

Sweden has made it perfectly clear for nearly two years that the purpose of bringing Assange back to Sweden was not to have a friendly little chat over coffee but rather to move forward with prosecution. Assange knows that, though his supporters often misrepresent the situation. Ecuador no doubt knows it, too, since the Swedes are likely to have explained the matter in great detail to the Ecuadorian ambassador back in June, when Ecuador inserted itself unnecessarily into this affair.

Assange was allowed eighteen months in the UK courts to fight his case, and he finally just jumped bail instead of continuing his appeals. Moreover, Assange also seems to be guilty now of an ongoing Bail Act offense, insofar as he was months ago ordered to surrender and has not done so: since the whole matter has been a major headache, the UK is unlikely to overlook the Bail Act offens

[tama]

5. Swedish prosecutor

has refused to answer why she wants Assange in custody instead of using other normal procedures for interview.

[struggle4progress]

6. Agreed statements of facts and issues

... 11 ... on 27th August 2010, the counsel for SW and AA appealed the Chief Prosecutor’s decision to a Senior Prosecutor in Goteborg. On 1st September 2010 , that prosecutor (Marianne Ny) decided that: i. The Preliminary Investigation in respect of file K246314-10<SW> would be resumed, under the offence of ‘rape’ ...

14 ... On 21st September 2010, the prosecutor contacted the Appellant’scounsel by text message to ask whether the Appellant could be made available for an interrogation on 28th September 2010. The date was provisionally agreed ...

15. On 27th September 2010 , the Appellant’s counsel advised the prosecutor that he had been unable to contact the Appellant. The prosecutor stated that she would consider how to proceed. Later that day, the prosecutor ordered that the Appellant should be arrested.

17. On 30th September 2010, the Appellant’s counsel was advised of theexistence of the arrest warrant. He advised the prosecutor that the Appellant was by then abroad. The Appellant had left Sweden on 27th September 2010. The Appellant offered to return to Sweden for interview on Sunday 10th October or on any date in the week commencing 11th October 2010. The Sunday was rejected as inappropriate. The week commencing 11th October 2010 was later rejected as being too far away.

18. The Respondent believed that the Appellant was attending a lecture in Stockholm on 4th October 2010. Plans were made to detain him then but that information proved inaccurate.

19. Therefore, on 5th and 8th October 2010, the prosecutor again contacted the Appellant’s counsel to discuss possible appointments for interview. The Appellant’s counsel offered to speak to the Appellant about whether he would be able to attend on 14th October 2010 ...

21. On 12th October 2010, the Appellant’s counsel advised the prosecutor that he had been unable to contact the Appellant. The prosecutor indicated her intention to issue an EAW if the Appellant did not attend for interview ...

25. On 18th November 2010, the prosecutor applied to the Stockholm District Court for a detention order in absentia ...

26. On the same date, the Stockholm District Court granted the prosecutor’s application for a domestic detention order in absentia.

27. On 19th November 2010, the Appellant appealed that order to the Svea Court of Appeal.

28. On 24th November 2010, following written argument on behalf of the parties, in which it was argued on behalf of the Appellant that the domestic arrest was not proportionate and not based on sufficient evidence giving rise to probable cause, but without an oral hearing, the order was upheld by the Svea Court of Appeal ...

29. The prosecutor’s written submissions to the Svea Court of Appeal on 24th November 2010 confirmed that she was “…requesting the arrest of Assange is in order to enable implementation of the preliminary investigation…”.

30. On 26th November 2010, an EAW was issued by the prosecutor pursuant to the Council of the European Union Framework Decision ...

33. On 28th November 2010, the Appellant applied to the Supreme Courtfor permission to appeal the decision of the Svea Court of Appeal. On 2nd December 2010, that application was refused ...

37. On 6th December 2010, the EAW was certified by SOCA ...

40. The ‘extradition hearing’ took place before the Senior District Judge(Judge Riddle) at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (sitting atBelmarsh Magistrates’ Court) on 7th, 8th & 11th February 2011 ... On 24th February 2011, the Appellant’s extradition was ordered by the Senior District Judge ...

43. On 12th & 13th July 2011, the Appeal was heard before the High Court ...

44. The High Court considered four appeal grounds:
a. The EAW had not been issued by a "judicial authority".
b. The EAW did not meet the dual criminality test.
c. The Applicant was not an “accused” within the meaning of s.2(3) of the 2003 Act.
d. The issue of the EAW and subsequent proceedings were not proportionate ...

46. On 2nd November 2011, the High Court dismissed the appeal, pursuant to section 27(1)(b) of the 2003 Act. The Court held that:
a. The Swedish prosecutor was a judicial authority, because the term “judicial” was not limited to a judge who adjudicates and could also include a prosecutorial body, as envisaged by Article 6 of the Framework Decision (judgment §§20-54);
b. The offences in the EAW did meet the dual criminality requirement, having regard to ss.74, 75 and 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (§§55-127);
c. The Applicant was an “accused” person, applying the House of Lords’ decision in Re Ismail <1999> 1 AC 320 (§§128-154);
d. The decision to issue the warrant and the failure to take up the offer of video link questioning were not disproportionate (§§155-160) ...

47. On 5th December 2011, the High Court certified that the following point of law of general public importance was involved in its decision, pursuant to section 32(4)(a) of the 2003 Act: “…Whether a European Arrest Warrant (‘EAW’) issued by a public prosecutor is a valid Part 1 Warrant issued by a “judicial authority” within the meaning of sections 2(2) & 66 of the Extradition Act 2003? ...” ...

51. No grounds of appeal were left undetermined by the High Court.

The issues

52. Whether a public prosecutor is a judicial authority ...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case

Assange had his year and a half in the UK courts, to argue against his extradition as he saw fit, and the foregoing provides a summary of the case as it left the High Court and headed into the UK Supreme Court. Note that any hint of the bizarre fantasia about forward extradition had already been dropped at Belmarsh. Assange's lawyers chose to quibble in the High Court about minor technical points -- such as whether the Swedish prosecutor could issue an EAW, or whether Assange could properly be described as "an accused person" for the purposes of extradition proceedings. He had his days in court, and he lost his case there

[struggle4progress]

7. "... It is a central contention of the defence that the warrant was issued for questioning

rather than prosecution ... I am satisfied that there is no equivocal statement or ambiguity in the warrant. The English version of the warrant states that it is for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order. The warrant refers to offences, indicates the relevant provisions of Swedish criminal law; and identifies specific conduct against Mr Assange ... The person who knows whether she wants the defendant for the purpose of being prosecuted is the Swedish prosecutor ... The fact that Sweden requires a person to be interrogated, before a formal decision to charge is made, is not determinative. Each country has its own procedures for prosecuting offences ... In summary: ... looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person passes the threshold of being an “accused” person and is wanted for prosecution ..."
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons


So already at Belmarsh, the UK courts had determined that the Swedish prosecutor wanted Assange returned to Sweden in order to prosecute him.

[tama]

9. TL;DR

And all that litany of legalese has nothing to do with the real issue. I don't trust the intentions of Swedish prosecution to be honest and in service of justice, and neither does Assange and Ecuador.

[struggle4progress]

10. Don't pretend to be informed, if you don't bother to read the basic background documents

[tama]

11. Being well informed

means ability to have a good sense of whole and avoid to get lost in anal-retentive "comma fucking" arguments that are just waste of time.

I'm from the school of "think global, act local". Your motivation is to bash and smear those who you see is threat to Obama. That is much more narrow and closed view and motivation than my global approach, and hence less informed.

[Peace Patriot]

4. Ha! Ecuador is calling their bluff! They never have wanted Assange for "questioning."

He has not been charged with these absurd, flimsy sex allegations--so absurd and flimsy that the first prosecutor dropped the case and told Assange he could leave Sweden. They have repeatedly refused to question him when he has made himself available. The sex allegations are nothing but a pretext. Their sole purpose is to get Assange into custody so he can be "rendered" to the U.S. to be buried in some dungeon like Bradley Manning.

So now, Ecuador and Assange are ONCE AGAIN making "questioning" of Assange possible but not in Swedish custody and their refusal AGAIN to "question" him will just make their purpose, their hypocrisy and their treachery all the more obvious.

[struggle4progress]

8. "... It is a central contention of the defence that the warrant was issued for questioning

rather than prosecution ... I am satisfied that there is no equivocal statement or ambiguity in the warrant. The English version of the warrant states that it is for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order. The warrant refers to offences, indicates the relevant provisions of Swedish criminal law; and identifies specific conduct against Mr Assange ... The person who knows whether she wants the defendant for the purpose of being prosecuted is the Swedish prosecutor ... The fact that Sweden requires a person to be interrogated, before a formal decision to charge is made, is not determinative. Each country has its own procedures for prosecuting offences ... In summary: ... looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person passes the threshold of being an “accused” person and is wanted for prosecution ..."
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons

The Swedish prosecution procedure and terminology are not entirely parallel with the English prosecution procedure and terminology, and Assangists continue to misrepresent the situation. Assange's lawyers at Belmarsh argued that the warrant was only for questioning and was therefore disproportionate, but the UK courts have held that the warrant is for purposes of prosecution