David Allen Green

A critical and liberal look at law and policy

Syndicate contentRSS

Will the Ecuadorian embassy be stormed?

Litigation, and not broken glass, is the more likely consequence.

Metropolitan Police Officers not storming the Ecuadorian embassy
Metropolitan Police Officers not storming the Ecuadorian embassy. Photograph: Getty Images

Last night the foreign minister of Ecuador warned that its London embassy was facing being “stormed” by the United Kingdom government. There had even been a threat in writing, it was claimed. This was a rather dramatic announcement, and it evoked images of SAS soldiers crashing through embassy windows to capture their cornered prey.

The reality seems to be more mundane. The UK government appears to have pointed out that it has the legal power to revoke the embassy status of the premises currently being used by the Ecuadorian embassy. (See Carl Gardner’s excellent post on the applicable law.) As such, this is merely a statement of what the law says. The UK government added that it does not want to use that power and hopes for an eventual compromise. Any threat is at best implicit, but it is hardly a brutal ultimatum.

And what would happen next is even less exciting.  As the UK government will be purporting to be exercising a statutory provision – in this case a power under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 – then any executive action is in principle amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court for judicial review.  Here it would be Ecuador challenging the UK government in a case that would raise complex points of domestic and international public law.

Accordingly, there will not be breaking glass in Kensington but the prospect of months (or perhaps years) of highly expensive litigation, which will probably reach the Supreme Court. In reality, Ecuador should now be more concerned about lawyers’ bills than any special forces “storming” its embassy.  

All the same, it does appear to be unwise for the UK government to even suggest that the embassy status is at risk. Whilst it is correct that a premises not actually being properly used as an embassy should not have the same legal protection as premises that are being used for such a purpose, it is difficult to see how giving refuge even to someone facing allegations of rape and sexual assault and a valid arrest warrant (and who is also in breach of bail conditions) is by itself sufficient to say the embassy is being so entirely misused that the UK government can invoke the 1987 Act.  And, as a matter of Realpolitik, what the UK government does to embassies in London can also be done to its embassies abroad. 

Of course, this is just one aspect of a mutual exercise in smoke and mirrors by the UK and Ecuadorian governments.  The claim by the Ecuadorian foreign minister may be spin to cover an eventual backing-down, or a signal of a more defiant approach. There may already be a deal between the two countries.   There may be the granting of asylum status, or not.  But there is little new of substance behind the strident assertions of the Ecuadorian foreign minister: the UK government has always had a residual power which it can exercise subject to the High Court, and the Ecuador government has presumably always known this.

International law is important: embassies should be safe and only have their status revoked in exceptional circumstances. But valid European arrest warrants are also part of international law, and they bind the UK if not Ecuador.  The UK is currently in breach of its obligation to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden, just as Assange is in breach of his bail conditions.  In seeking to facilitate the extradition of Assange, the UK government is trying to uphold the law and not break it.

And so due process continues to be evaded, and the rights of the complainants of rape and sexual assault still remain frustrated. However, complainants of rape and sexual assault have rights too.  And the longer this matter drags out, the less chance of any justice in respect of the original allegations.  That is the real scandal.

 

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman

77 comments

mark warning's picture

David Allen Green should be ashamed of the nonsense he's written on this subject. Most people understand the rape charges are not credible; Assange is being persecuted for exposing the criminality of Great Britain and the United States. Gone are the days when Anglo powers commanded respect for their willingness to tolerate dissent and freedom of inquiry. Why? The empire has no clothes .

Red Rain's picture

"Most people understand the rape charges are not credible" Isn't that for a Swedish court of law to decide? In the case of the first woman who helped Assange arrange his visit to Sweden he is alleged to have held her arms down physically and spread her legs during what Assange says was consensual sex in her apartment-so when does Rape become consensual sex-apparently when the alleged perpetrator has become a left-wing hero...

Will Podmore's picture

Mark Warning is quite right.
David Green, incredibly, wrote, "In seeking to facilitate the extradition of Assange, the UK government is trying to uphold the law and not break it."

Is he aware of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations?
Its Article 22 states,
“1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.”

Red Rain's picture

Why doesn't he simply return to Sweden and confront these very serious allegations against him. If he's innocent what's the problem? Hiding away in the Ecuadorian embassy doesn't help his case or that of his supporters.

studiostu's picture

Firstly, the allegations are not serious at all, I've never heard of anybody being convicted of rape in similar circumstances, have you?

Secondly, as this is obviously a stitch up, the chance is he will either be convicted for a crime he didn't commit, or he will be sent off the the US to never be seen again.

This country and its media should hang its head in shame.

Red Rain's picture

If these allegations aren't that serious.... why doesn’t Assange just hop on a plane and tell the Swedish prosecutor it's all been a terrible mistake. While Julian Assange struts around the Ecuadorian London embassy. Sweden is incensed he has belittled one of the world's most respected justice systems and questioned a nation famed for welcoming not extraditing political refugees.

AAMVN's picture

Best just to ignore RED RAIN and his trollish posts.

Red Rain's picture

Sweden's legal and constitutional system guarantees the rights of each and everyone. Sweden reject any accusations to the contrary. Along with other Northern European countries. Sweden sees itself as a legal safe haven and it has over the years welcomed thousands of political refugees from dictatorships in Latin America to Iraqis fleeing the U.S. led invasion. The World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index 2011 report ranked Sweden first of 66 nations on fundamental legal rights. So why would a man flee a country that would guarantee him a fair hearing? To a country that is characterized by an increasing culture of harassment against journalists that has resulted in part from President Rafael Correa’s open hostility to the media.

Brian Barder's picture

I thought the UK aide memoire was very much a blunt ultimatum, or at any rate an explicit threat. Moreover it was a threat based on an incorrect statement of the UK's rights under international law. Entry into the embassy without Ecuadorean consent would be in breach of the Vienna Convention (1961), however much HMG might disapprove of what was going on in it, and whatever a badly drafted piece of domestic UK law might say -- and that Act stipulates that any action taken under it must be consistent with international law.

Hikaru22's picture

Another thing we have yet to find out is how deeply the Foreign Secretary has damaged our relations with a number of Latin American countries as a result of his threat to lift the diplomatic immunity of the of the Ecuadorian embassy in London. It ought to be remembered that it was the delivery of this threat which resulted in Ecuador granting Julian Assange political asylum.

I should have thought that one of the first casualties of this crisis was whatever reputation the Foreign Secretary might previously have enjoyed for competence and good judgement.

hugh markey's picture

Argh Davie, lad! Those were the days. Sailing the Spanish Main and teaching those Don Diegos and Don Juans a right proper lesson. Cpt'n Morgan and that old slaver SIr Frances Drake, yes, there were real blackguards but they wus on our side. And not forgetting Good Queen Bess - sent Phillip's Armada to hell.
And those conterfeit Diegos in the Ameicas. Let them holler! We got Viceroy Wild Bill Hague, Davey Jones Cameron, Dandy Georgie Osborne and that there cabin-boy, Mikey Gove not forgetting our right-wing crew of cutthroats and Tory backwoodsmen and female women.
[ The last time the UK and the USA were in this kind of pickle was when Sir Roger Casement was in the dock. Selective and judicious leaking of extracts from the Black Diaries by the British Government of the time worked wonders. Sex sells more than automobiles ]

El Dorado

Gideon Polya's picture

A prime responsibility of all citizens - and journalists in particular - is to tell the truth in the national interest and in the interests of Humanity. This Julian Assange has done to an extraordinary degree and for which he can be objectively seen as an Australian and World hero.

Julian Assange has not actually been charged with any crime and it is palpably obvious even to Blind Freddy that he is being got at by the US and its lackeys Sweden and the UK - only courageous and principled action by the Ecuadorean Government has prevented criminal rendition.

One can contrast the egregious persecution of Julian Assange (not even charged with any crime) with the full protection given by the British legal system to mass murderer Pinochet, responsible for the deaths of thousands of Chileans after the US-backed 9-11 1973 Coup (3,000 murdered but 1973-1990 excess mortality from deprivation 0.3 million) (see my book "Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950" now available for free perusal on the Web).

An even more disturbing comparison is with the protection afforded to Tony Blair who with George Bush and Australia's John Howard illegally invaded Iraq in 2003 (post-invasion violent deaths 1.5 million, avoidable deaths from war-imposed deprivation 1.2 million, 0.8 million under-5 infant deaths, 90% avoidable and due to US Alliance war crimes in gross violation of the Geneva Convention; Google "Iraqi Holocaust, Iraqi Genocide").

In his 2005 Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech UK writer the late Harold Pinter stated: "We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'. How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice" (Google "Art, Truth and Politics"). 2.7 million? More than enough, I would have thought.

A prime responsibility of any Australian Government and Opposition is to do everything they can to protect Australian citizens, and in particular from violent, serial human rights abusers. - yet the Neocon American and Zionist Imperialist-beholden Australian Governments have manifestly failed to protect tens of thousands of Australians being bombed by Apartheid Israel in Lebanon in 2006, scores of Australians whose passports were forged by Israelis for terrorist purposes, 5 Australians violently kidnapped by Israelis in International Waters, Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks who were renditioned and tortured by the US and its allies, and now Julian Assange who is threatened with rendition, torture, imprisonment and possible death and has evaded rendition to the US only thanks to the decency and principle Ecuadorian Government.

Latin Americans will not forget the genocidal role of British interests in the extermination of Paraguayan, Uruguayan and Argentinian Indians (replaced by cattle just as the Highland Scots were replaced by sheep) and the Congo-style British genocidal atrocities committed against Peruvian Amazon Indians in their greed for rubber (see A.R.B Robinson "The Magnificent Field of Enterprise, Britons in Peru, 1815-1915"). Relevant to whistle-blower extraordinaire Julian Assange, Sir Roger Casement, who exposed the Belgian atrocities in the Congo in which 10 million Congolese died, was hanged by the British in 1916).

The Australian Opposition Libs (Liberals) and Government Labs (Labor) sit back and allow these atrocities to be perpetrated against Australians without demur because they shamefully put the interests of Australians well behind those of several serial war criminal, nuclear terrorist rogue states, namely Zionist-beholden US, US lackey the UK and Apartheid Israel . If it can happen to Julian Assange it can happen to any Australian. Full marks to Mrs Christine Assange for her articulate defence of the human rights of her son and of ALL Australians.

Red Rain's picture

Zionist-beholden US, Apartheid Israel, British genocidal atrocities committed against... this nonsense is endless...... Assange is as guilty as hell... It's a nonsense to say he won't be treated fairly in Sweden. It is well known that all Scandinavian countries have a high regard for human rights... does Ecuador? No he is using this extradition nonsense to cover his crimes.

AAMVN's picture

Don't feed the TROLL.

Red Rain's picture

The UK is currently in breach of its obligation to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden, just as Assange he himself is in breach of his bail conditions. This Australian fugitive is charged with a number of serious sexual offences and now the Ecuadorian government has been drawn in Julian Assange pathetic attempt at avoiding justice. The Ecuadorian government now finds itself at loggerheads with a friend and ally. The British government will not storm the Ecuadorian embassy this is London after all not Tehran.

p j wall's picture

For some strange reason, Sweden will not say 'NEVER' to extradition to the U.S for Mr Assange!, why not?.
We all know the Swedes could put an end to all of this. and call Assanges bluff, by making such a pledge?.
The truth is, Sweden is probably like the U.K!, it does as it`s told by their masters the Americans!, and like the servile Brits, it will 'cow tow' to any 'Mickey Mouse' reason the Americans give for Assanges extradition?, all the Swedes are saying at the moment is, it doesn`t extradite anyone who could suffer the death penalty!!, Er, yeah, ok, but that doesn`t stop them extraditing someone to spend a 100 years in the clink, on some trumped up charge regarding their favourite excuse, threats to 'National Security'.
Poor Bradley Manning, it already looks as if he`s going to spend the rest of his natural, inside?, it`s already been alleged he`s been, let`s say, roughed up, and treated very harshly, with some politicians calling for his exercution!!, along with Assanges!, and some are still questioning what all the fuss is about, regarding his extradition!!!.

mbrecker's picture

In watching the Assange megahype unfold online, several things stand out.

The first? How so many who've never been to Sweden, law school or served in MI5 or 6 are experts on Swedish women, Swedish criminal law, intl. law, EU arrest warrants, CIA honey traps and more. It's a bit like a mate that tells you to not include a certain Inland Revenue form when you do your taxes.

Are you sure?
Absolutely. I know I'm right.
Are you a tax attorney, CPA or certified financial advisor?
No. But damnit, I KNOW I'm right.

A lot of the rampant "get it first" speculation is borderline surreal.

Will the embassy smuggle Assange out ? Maybe in a embassy bag? Or, a laundry bag?
Does a laundry bag have "diplomatic immunity"?
If Ecuador makes him a citizen, does that automatically cancel a valid deportation warrant?
How many ways can the MSM pundits fill airtime with variations on "yes, it's a impasse"?

In all of the millions of posts, clips and more on this case, how many have actually talked about what real rape survivors have to go thru? Answer: almost none. Why? Because it's way more interesting to talk about what an apparent babe magnet Assange is (can his 4 kids all over the world not be proof of that)? How many bosses have had all of their women staff? Has anyone stopped to consider why more women (and men, to be frank) don't report being raped? One reason is who's going to take you seriously? Instead, there's more profit in hype. Its like that's the first question at various news outlets. Where's the sex angle? We must include sex in this!

If Assange is being persecuted and is so vital to the future of the free world, how come millions aren't in front of 10 Downing and the embassy every day? Because we're in a global depression (despite what Osborne tells you). Millions are trying to keep their job, struggle with underpaying part-time work, and to not be homeless.If Assange is so smart, did he anticipate that as he tries to outspin the govt. to remain a "hot" news story?

If anyone seriously believes that the Cameron will allow Assange to leave the country, you're delusional. The Tories would never forgive him. Obama would cut him off from "The Special Relationship". And his career would be over. After that, do you really want Boris to take over?

If a US citizen opposes the Afghan War, it's now legal for the govt. to monitor everything they do. If Obama decides that they're a "terrorist", they can be killed anywhere in the world. Can this person get political asylum as well? Interesting fact: one US citizen was actually granted political asylum in the UK because they opposed Bush's war policies.

If you're jobless, have almost no benefits left, and are this close to losing everything, do you REALLY care about somebody hiding out for potentially years in some embassy? Get over your selective amnesia and deal with facts. Cameron is in a can't lose position here. Assange has no place to go. He also knows that if he doesn't remain a "hot, sexy news story with legs", nobody cares.

Julian Assange (c/o Ecuadorian Embassy)'s picture

I can't see what all this fuss is about? my victims were only women who were begging for it. They are likely not to have been stoned to death.
Alahu Akbar!
Death to America!
Death to Sweden!
Death to the UK!
Death (of course) to Israel.

its1789's picture

Pathetic, unsuccessful attempt at humour, and about a rather serious subject. One can see how much you sympathize with the two women crushed under the wheels of this media juggernaut.

It's interesting how little value the women really have. They've effectively been raped by the media over and over again. They are expendable, to be used as canon fodder in an attack on a man and an organization that's seen as a threat to the United States and its client states.

It's good to see the political nature of this affair finally being revealed.

Sebastian.'s picture

I thought it rather amusing

Sebastian.'s picture

I thought it rather amusing

bill23's picture

That says plenty.

Sebastian.'s picture

So because Assange holds bizarre political views, supports Islamist terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, hates the US and Jews and was on good terms with the Guardian .........He is somehow immune from being investigated in Sweden for rape offenses?

its1789's picture

What an absurd comment. Of course he isn't immune and shouldn't be. But serious allegations are not the same as serious charges, let alone being able to prove them in court when they are scrutinized.

If the allegations against Assange are so well-founded why don't the Swedish authorities charge him with something? If they charged him at least things would be out in the open and he and his legal team could defend themselves against specific charges, not vague rumours and unsubstantiated and unprovable allegations, which are incredibly damaging, not just for Assange, but for the two women involved as well.

As Assange has already been interviewed by the Swedish police about this affair and he denies raping anyone, or molesting anyone, or coercing anyone, why do the Swedes even need another interview with him, as there are no witnessing to the sexual attacks and no physical evidence?

And one should remember that the two women involved haven't complained to the police that they were raped or attacked by Assange, or that the sex was violent or forced. They both stated that the sex was consensual, that much is clear from the leaked police interviews. So, if the two women don't claim they were raped, what is going on here? How come almost everyone thinks Assange has been charged with rape in Sweden?

Sebastian.'s picture

I'm afraid it's your comment that is absurd. The investigation by Swedish Police has been thwarted because Assange has done his utmost to evade and obstruct the allegation. If Assange has nothing to worry about why is he not man enough to return to Sweden and clear his name? We are not talking about going of to Iran or Pakistan. Sweden happens to be a liberal democracy with an independent judiciary.
Instead Assange and his supporters claim that traveling to Sweden exposes him to extradition to the US! His presence in the UK also exposes him to extradition to the US. And again, if he feels that he has broken no US laws or has a legitimate defense to his publication of US military details - why does this coward fear being sent to America?

its1789's picture

How does one 'evade and obstruct' an allegation? How does one defend oneself against an allegation? Why should anyone have to clear their name from mere allegations? Isn't that demanding that Assange prove his innocence? Doesn't that undermine the age old concept of innocent until proven guilty? If we go do that road, where does it end?

Being a liberal democracy doesn't automatically imply that miscarriages of justice cannot happen, as in this case; as in 'trial' and 'conviction' in the media before charges have even been made. And Sweden's judiciary isn't as independent as you think, far from it. They have a different history and a different judicial culture compared to the UK, where in comparison Judges are far more independent and often in open conflict with the State.

For example, juries are almost unknown in Sweden. No trial by one's peers. Just a Judge and perhaps two 'politically appointed' jurymen, who normally are guided by the Judge, very different from the UK or the US. The European tradition compared to the Anglo-Saxon. Bail is unheard of while one awaits trial, which can take months, even for trivial offences, and one is often held in solitary confinement.

If the Americans demanded Assange's extradition from the UK on a political charge for publishing material that undermines US national security this would play into the hands of Assange's supporters. However, once in Sweden he would be far more vulnerable to any American pressure for his extradition for a number of obvious reasons.

Finally one doesn't actually have to have broken any US laws to be thrown in jail by the US authorities for years, without charge, and without trial. This has happened to literally thousands of people over the last ten years. People classified as 'terrorists' and captured on the battlefield. The US Government has even assassinated US citizens abroad without due process, without charges, without any right to appeal, and without any mercy. Why would anyone take the risk of relying on US-style justice under the Obama administration?

Sebastian.'s picture

Oh dear. You sound like another of the Islamist butters that pollute this site.

Coleridge's picture

Well put Sebastian. The irony of this is that Assange is a pro-Islamist anti-American fanatic who believes that America does not have the right to keep its military and diplomatic material confidential. He believes that everything must be exposed and aired publicly - except the complaints made against him by two Swedish women who claim to have been sexually assaulted by him. They apparently have no right to have their complaints investigated or tried by a criminal court.
Assange is a pathetic, hypocritical coward!

its1789's picture

The two women don't claim to have been raped by Assange, or forced into sex with him, molested, or attacked, there was no violence between them. The accusations have been 'trumped-up' by media savy, crooked lawyers on the make, who have their own agendas and are merely using the women in a thoroughly opportunistic, cynical, and unscrupulous fashion, to fit their own political ambitions. In this context the women don't matter to anyone. It's a very dirty game and they are merely pawns. And that's just in Sweden, before one gets into the international politics of the affair!

At least Coleridge is honest about the wider political picture and why Assange is hated and feared. He is perceived to be anti-American and anti-Israel, and this is his real crime, and why he and Wikileaks must be destroyed.

Alan Peart's picture

It's hilarious and terrifying watching everyone debate the current situation, the "rape" allegations etc, seriously. Everyone KNOWS what is happening, and why. The debate is being successfully diverted into irrelevant channels such as "can Ecuador offer asylum" and "did Assange really rape those women" - complex issues with no easy answer - and that is one of the methods by which the energy and attention of the world is diverted from what is actually happening, which is that the United States government is going to get their hands on Assange, as they have wanted to all along. Everyone knows this but they allow themselves to be diverted into debates with no purpose and no end. There's nothing to be done except to watch and understand how things really work. You can't fight this, but you can watch it and understand it, and eventually, understand what the current definition of "freedom" is really worth, and what that word would really mean if you could build a world around it yourself.

Noss Cern's picture

His is not accused of rape - if you are repeating this obvious lie your standards must be pretty low.

Tony Lloyd's picture

"Obvious lie"?

From the judgement of the Supreme Court 30 May 2012:

"The offences of which he is accused and in respect of which his surrender is sought are alleged to have been committed in Stockholm against two women in August 2010. They include “sexual molestation” and, in one case rape."

Got that? Rape. He is accused of rape.

If you're going to call that an "obvious lie" then *your" standards must be on the floor.

raimond dupre's picture

You don't rape a woman who decided - by mutual accord - to pass a night of sex with you in the SAME BED !!!

Tony Lloyd's picture

You may think that the circumstances surrounding this case make it impossible for the activity complained of to amount to rape. You may be right. If you were, then it would not be true to say that he had committed rape.

It's still true to say that he is accused of rape.

AAMVN's picture

It's rape only because the Swedish prosecutor says so. Even the women never accused him of rape at the beginning - only after the lawyers said 'they don't know what rape is' - only a lawyer does' - or some such tosh.

So - it's at best disputable. Neutral comment usually uses terms like "allegations of sexual misconduct" which covers both sides of the argument evenly.

The key point is the abject refusal of the Swedish authorities to question Assange in London. This is the normal procedure in cases like this and it seems they have done this in a murder case quite recently.

They are trying to get him into jail in Sweden so they can at least pressure him into confessing or at worst send him to America. Now they have been almost 2 years in the spotlight, they can't risk losing face by taking him to Sweden and then releasing him after questioning - undue pressure will be placed on the authorities and 'lay judges' - no juries in Sweden remember - to convict. Then he will get a severe sentence - up to 4 years is possible out of spite.

In the final analysis - they had their chance while Assange waitied 5 weeks in Sweden before being allowed to leave, What can they possibly know now that they didn't then - all they have is the statements of the two women. No physical evidence. No corroborating witnesses. It is laughauble and hilarious yet chilling too.

Tony Lloyd's picture

"It's rape only because the Swedish prosecutor says so."

So the Swedish prosecutor says he commited rape. "Says that x committed crime y" is, well, "accuses x of y".

Tony Lloyd's picture

"Obvious lie"?

From the judgement of the Supreme Court 30 May 2012:

"The offences of which he is accused and in respect of which his surrender is sought are alleged to have been committed in Stockholm against two women in August 2010. They include “sexual molestation” and, in one case rape."

Got that? Rape. He is accused of rape.

If you're going to call that an "obvious lie" then *your" standards must be on the floor.

its1789's picture

But the central point is, the two women involved with Assange in this damaging affair, for all of them, don't claim that Assange raped them, used violence, or forced them to have sex with them, don't these facts have any significance? Maybe if the Judges on the Supreme Court had bothered to read the Swedish police interviews with the women, instead of the dramatized version of events produced by the prosecution, which, after all, is part of the prosecution's role, they might have changed their opinion about the affair? I mean it's hard to have a rape trial where even the women involved don't claim they were raped?

Tony Lloyd's picture

The central point in considering whether a claim that someone has been accused of rape is an "obvious lie" is whether or not he has been accused of rape.

There is a European Arrest Warrant accusing Assange of, er, "rape", together with acknowledgement from both the High Court and Supreme Court that Assange is accused of rape.

Red Rain's picture

Why are some on the political-left defending this alleged Rapist. Innocent men accused of this heinous crime-don't run and hide: they defend their honor with a passion in a court of law...

harryhart's picture

I would recommend that if we're going to start a war with Ecuador we ought to fight Argentina at the same time to reduce transport costs and any extra strain on the Defence budget.

AAMVN's picture

Following recent defence cuts, Britain is in no position to fight a war with Ecuador OR Argentina. But you were only being facetious - I get it.

harryhart's picture

I would recommend that if we're going to start a war with Ecuador we ought to fight Argentina at the same time to reduce transport costs and any extra strain on the Defence budget.

Barry Ewart's picture

Can"t Assamge defend any Swedish charges against him by video link to Sweden?
Seems when the US says "Jump!" some in the West say "how high?"
Persecution for leaking inconvenient truths?

bill23's picture

Given Hague's statement, can we expect the law to be applied to bankers, or is Cameron et al too closely related to these master criminals?

Davidaslindsay's picture

Julian Assange is undeniably a most unattractive character.

But Ecuador is right to stand up to the imperium that now presumes to exercise a universal jurisdiction which it does not in fact possess.

As would be supposedly neutral Sweden.

And as would be the United Kingdom, of the monarch of which Assange is a subject, with all liberties accordingly.

its1789's picture

Just a 'detail.' There are no complaints of rape or sexual assault in Sweden relating to Assange, at least not from the two women involved, and one would imagine they'ed know if they had been raped or sexually assaulted. Here's a challenge for Green. Read the leaked Swedish police reports, in an english translation or in Swedish, and show where the women complain of being raped or sexually assaulted. It can't be that difficult, and surely this is the core of the affair, allegations of rape and sexual assault?

Then, when one's done that, read the interviews with the women about what they say happened in their bedrooms between them and Assange, find some place in UK law where Assange's alleged actions are also defined as crimes, that should be pretty easy as well, for a lawyer. Then imagine how, in a court, one could possibly prove any of the allegations against Assange, given there are no witnesses and no physical evidence that any 'crime' has, in fact, taken place.

So, a man who hasn't actually been formally charged with any crime in Sweden, is being extradited merely for questioning in relation to actions which arguably are not crimes in the UK and would never lead to charges or a successful prosecution. Yet none of these facts seem of the least interest to most UK journalists or commentators, why?

sven the troll's picture

1.) He is Wanted in Connection with a Rape Investigation

People are still saying that he is wanted for "sex without a condom" which is an offence only in Sweden. Wrong. The European Arrest Warrant issued in respect of him clearly gives four offences that he is suspected of (but not yet charged for). They are one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one of rape.

The issue of whether these were offences under English law was considered by the High Court (click for judgment). Look at paragraphs 3, 78-91 (91 in particular). It is very clear that the alleged offence is rape under English criminal law. This very clear post by David Allen Green also sets out the situation: "English courts have held – twice – that the relevant allegation would also be an allegation of the offence of rape in English law"

2) This is the Personal Vendetta of one Swedish Prosecutor

Wrong. The Stockholm District Court made an arrest order against Mr Assange, which he then challenged in the Swedish Svea Court of Appeal. They examined the case in detail and determined there was probable cause and his arrest was justified. His appeal was dismissed.

3) He has not had Full Recourse to the Courts of this Country

Wrong. He has had a full hearing before the Senior District Judge and Chief Magistrate at the City of Westminster Magistrates Court on his extradition. It ordered his extradition to Sweden to face investigation (note, he is only the subject of an arrest warrant there and has not yet been charged). Mr Assange appealed this order to the High Court. It found against him. He appealed to the UK Supreme Court. It held against him.

4) He is a Fugitive from Justice

Indeed he is. After the Supreme Court ruling went against him, he skipped bail and sought refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador before his deportation was scheduled to take place (commencing 28 June 2012). He has therefore committed a separate criminal offence in this country for which he is wanted.

its1789's picture

Sven the Troll, you seem confused. Allegations are very different from actually charges. Anyone can make allegations about almost anything, and that doesn't mean they are correct, or true, or can be proved in a court of law.

The British courts haven't examined the 'merits' of the Swedish 'charges' against Assange for at least two reasons. First as there are no charges how can a court examine something that doesn't exist? Courts are not supposed to scrutinize mere allegations are they? Second, under the terms of the treaty the UK courts are specifically hindered, it isn't there job to scrutinize the merits of the warrant, only to see it executed. To give the impression, which Green does that the courts have examined the case in detail, is a misrepresentation of the facts. The courts have only looked at 'credibility' of the allegations.

The courts found against Assange in relation to the warrant, was the warrant valid, not in relation to the substance of the allegations, which they didn't examine, because the allegations are irrelevant under the terms of the treaty and the EAW procedures.

A court has not decided that Assange has committed a separate criminal offence of 'skipping bail' so you are wrong there as well. He hasn't been arrested or charged with any crime in the UK and to state otherwise is factually wrong. It may be your opinion, but that doesn't make it true.

nadeltanz's picture

...kissing the Ring they are.

Latest tweets