Assange - Bigger threat to UK than Terrorist?

[CallmePete]

If Assange's bail is refused this coming thursday and the swedish appeal is held up.

This means next court appearance will be the 11th January.

this is without being charged with any crime anywhere in the world, let alone in the UK where he is being held.


In the UK Terrorists can be held for "up to" 28 days without any charges being laid.

If Assange is held is imprisoned till the 11 January 2011 without having any charges laid against him.

The Duration of the time served will be longer than that given to terrorists without charge.

Can someone explain to me how an Australian can be held in a UK prison without being charged with any crime?

 

[NanobotOverlord]

No.

 

[Puppycow]

He has been charged with a crime. In Sweden.

 

[PhantomWolf]

If Assange's bail is refused this coming thursday and the swedish appeal is held up.

This means next court appearance will be the 11th January.

this is without being charged with any crime anywhere in the world, let alone in the UK where he is being held.


In the UK Terrorists can be held for "up to" 28 days without any charges being laid.

If Assange is held is imprisoned till the 11 January 2011 without having any charges laid against him.

The Duration of the time served will be longer than that given to terrorists without charge.

Can someone explain to me how an Australian can be held in a UK prison without being charged with any crime?

Assange can leave Jail any time he wants, all he has to do is agree to travel to Sweden to face questioning there.

 

[gumboot]

If Assange's bail is refused this coming thursday and the swedish appeal is held up.

This means next court appearance will be the 11th January.

this is without being charged with any crime anywhere in the world, let alone in the UK where he is being held.


In the UK Terrorists can be held for "up to" 28 days without any charges being laid.

If Assange is held is imprisoned till the 11 January 2011 without having any charges laid against him.

The Duration of the time served will be longer than that given to terrorists without charge.

Can someone explain to me how an Australian can be held in a UK prison without being charged with any crime?

It's a little different because he's being held in preparation to potentially be extradited. Under UK Law he can be remanded in custody until the Extradition Hearing, which must be held within 21 days of arrest.

If a party to the proceedings requests a date later than 21 days the judge can only consent to the later date if they consider it in the best interests of Justice. Alternatively the person can consent to extradition, in which case the Judge must order extradition within ten days of consent being given, and extradition must occur within ten days of the order being issued.

 

[Leif Roar]

He has been charged with a crime. In Sweden.

No, he hasn't. He is wanted by Swedish authorities for questioning re allegations against him, but he has not been charged with anything yet.

 

[fincoder]

Assange can leave Jail any time he wants, all he has to do is agree to travel to Sweden to face questioning there.

He already stayed in Sweden for 40 days to allow questioning. They dropped the matter and said he could leave the country.

The Swedish prosecutor appealing the bail decision, even when their are strict conditions such as tracking device and daily reporting to police (no flight risk), seems to be designed to shut him up and keep him off the net.

 

[PhantomWolf]

He already stayed in Sweden for 40 days to allow questioning. They dropped the matter and said he could leave the country.

And then the lawyer the women hired to look over the case requested that it be reopened because in his opinion the first prosecutor got it right, and the second got it wrong. Once it was reopened the prosecution office asked him to return and he refused saying he'd only be willing to go to the Embassy. They determined that wasn't enough and filed an arrest warrent.

The Swedish prosecutor appealing the bail decision, even when their are strict conditions such as tracking device and daily reporting to police (no flight risk), seems to be designed to shut him up and keep him off the net.

Or it's designed to force him to give in and go back for questioning. No one is stupid enough to believe that Wikileaks can't operate without Assange so there is little point to keeping him off the net. He has shown a relutance to return to Sweden to be questioned however, he has plenty of people willing to fund and hide him, and he's in a country with no ties or permanent residence, seems plenty of reason to appeal it to me.

 

[PhantomWolf]

He already stayed in Sweden for 40 days to allow questioning. They dropped the matter and said he could leave the country.

The Swedish prosecutor appealing the bail decision, even when their are strict conditions such as tracking device and daily reporting to police (no flight risk), seems to be designed to shut him up and keep him off the net.

Also, remember that he can get out of jail whenever he wants. All he has to do is agree to return to Sweden and answer some questions. The only reason he's in jail is because he is fighting to not be sent back.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

The Duration of the time served will be longer than that given to terrorists without charge.

Can someone explain to me how an Australian can be held in a UK prison without being charged with any crime?

He's been arrested, on the back of a EAW. What is happening to him is what often happens in the UK for anyone in that situation, no matter what the crime they have been arrested for.

ETA: Details about EAWs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant

 

[fincoder]

Or it's designed to force him to give in and go back for questioning.

This is not the extradition hearing, it's just about bail.

No one is stupid enough to believe that Wikileaks can't operate without Assange so there is little point to keeping him off the net.

Assange has been ruthlessly targeted by politicians in the US and Australia. By this I mean he has been named in public statements referring to "illegal" acts (publishing leaked documents). You'd have to be stupid to think restriction of Assange's activities would NOT be desired by these people.

He has shown a relutance to return to Sweden to be questioned however, he has plenty of people willing to fund and hide him, and he's in a country with no ties or permanent residence, seems plenty of reason to appeal it to me.

He handed himself in to police. That is not showing reluctance. There has been no extradition hearing yet.

The bail conditions included GPS tracking, virtual house arrest, and daily reporting to police. Minimal or non-existent flight risk.

 

[fincoder]

He's been arrested, on the back of a EAW. What is happening to him is what often happens in the UK for anyone in that situation, no matter what the crime they have been arrested for.

ETA: Details about EAWs: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant

Almost all of the cases documented in this wiki entry involved bail being granted while awaiting extradition hearing.

 

[Darat]

Almost all of the cases documented in this wiki entry involved bail being granted while awaiting extradition hearing.

Well he has been granted bail (at the second hearing) but it is being appealed - I think we will see him out on bail before Christmas. I also suspect (if I've understood correctly what happened in Sweden) that his lawyers will be able to mount a strong defence regarding the legitimacy of the EAW.

 

[PhantomWolf]

This is not the extradition hearing, it's just about bail.

I know this, however he is only needing bail because he and his lawyers are planning to go to an extradition hearing, if he says that he'll return to Sweden, there won't be a need for an Extradition hearing, and thus no need to have further bail hearings either.

Assange has been ruthlessly targeted by politicians in the US and Australia. By this I mean he has been named in public statements referring to "illegal" acts (publishing leaked documents). You'd have to be stupid to think restriction of Assange's activities would NOT be desired by these people.

Desiring something doesn't make it happen, and there is zero evidence that anyone is making anything happen.

He handed himself in to police. That is not showing reluctance. There has been no extradition hearing yet.

If he isn't relutant to return to Sweden for questioning why didn't he just return when asked to? Why hasn't he agreed to return rather than remaining in jail? Why are his lawuers planning to fight the Extradition order?

The bail conditions included GPS tracking, virtual house arrest, and daily reporting to police. Minimal or non-existent flight risk.

The current ones do, the previous ones didn't. As I say I suspect the current appeal has more to do with the prosecution in Sweden trying to make him stop fighting the extradition and just return than anything else. If they can make it as uncomfortable for him as they can now, so that he agrees to return for questioning rather than carry on fighting to avoid questioning, they won't have to go through the extradition hearing.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Well he has been granted bail (at the second hearing) but it is being appealed - I think we will see him out on bail before Christmas. I also suspect (if I've understood correctly what happened in Sweden) that his lawyers will be able to mount a strong defence regarding the legitimacy of the EAW.

I doubt that they can legitimately challenge the warrant itself, but I suspect that they are going to play the whole Political Spectre card claiming that it's all because the US is pressuring Sweden to get him. I think that most UK judges are smart enough to see through that smoke screen.

Having said that, even if he does go back for questioning, I doubt that there would ever be a conviction, even if it goes to trial. Sex cases are notoriously difficult to get convictions in, especially Acquaintance Rape ones like this case where it finally boils down to "he says, she says." I suspect that if he does go back that after questioning and discussions among the lawyers that the charges will be dropped due to it being unlikely to get a conviction, and it's also possible that there may be some out of court settlement with the women.

Funny thing, if he'd done the right thing in the first place and done some medical tests, none of this would have even happened.

 

[Darat]

I doubt that they can legitimately challenge the warrant itself, b

...snip...

From what I understand the charges were known when he left Sweden and he left Sweden in a legitimate manner and therefore he didn't "flee" as it is interpreted by UK courts so that would be possible grounds for challenging the EAW. (This is based on my understanding of what happened in Sweden.)

 

[PhantomWolf]

From what I understand the charges were known when he left Sweden and he left Sweden in a legitimate manner and therefore he didn't "flee" as it is interpreted by UK courts so that would be possible grounds for challenging the EAW. (This is based on my understanding of what happened in Sweden.)

Does he have to have fled?

When he left the charges had been dropped, but the case was reopened after the women's lawyer requested it. He was asked through his Swedish lawyers to return for further questioning, and refused, stating that he'd only go to the Swedish Embassy in the UK.

This appears to be the procedure for an EAW doesn't appear to have anything about fleeing or anything. What might catch them is if they only want him for questioning rather then trial. Depends how you interept "conducting a criminal prosecution."

 

[Soapy Sam]

Fled?
Fleaded, shurely?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Fled?
Fleaded, shurely?

fled: past participle, past tense of flee.

 

[CallmePete]

If he isn't relutant to return to Sweden for questioning why didn't he just return when asked to? Why hasn't he agreed to return rather than remaining in jail? Why are his lawuers planning to fight the Extradition order?

Its on public record that he's keeping away from sweden to avoid getting extradited to the USA, where there are so many crackpots calling for his assassination.

Your language suggests that if he doesn't like being held in prison in UK he's free to go back and face the Swedish courts and defend the allegations brought against him by these two woman. This is misleading.

He is doing his best to stay in UK where he believes there is still some justice, as noted in his latest article written while in prison. (unfortunately I have lost the link to this article)