The Swedish have been getting on their knees for the Yanks for years. How many times have the Swedish gone after their citizens for breaking American copyright laws? They're no different to us; Washington tells them jump and they ask for measurements.

Of course the UK and Sweden are totally corrupt. Do you live in some obscure world in which our political class are honourable and decent? Now [ithat[/i is ludicrous. I suppose you think Britain is a democracy and that pigs fly, too

Why are you arguing a case that even Assange and his QC are not? The only ground on which he appealed (and came close to succeeding) is whether or not for the purposes of the EAW the Swedish prosecutor was a "judicial authority".

The earlier hearings dealt with other matters. On the "USA" question, Assange's lawyers did NOT in the end pursue the point that if sent to Sweden he risked extradition to the USA. The court was not even told if Sweden HAS an extradition treaty with the USA, so could hardly have considered a point neither pursued nor on which any materials were presented to it.

Furthermore, even though the point was not pursued, the court (I thought helpfully) pointed out that if an extradition request was made to Sweden by the USA, the consent of the Secretary of State in this country will be required, in accordance with section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Sweden could order Mr Assange’s extradition. I.e. by going to Sweden, Assange would [inot[/i lose any protection he has from extradition in the UK courts, it would actually make zero difference, so that is just a total non-argument, and of course the reason why his lawyers rightly chose not to pursue it.

What? You mean someone has committed a crime and the Swedish arrested them? Those evil, lapdog b4stards.

Who the hell mentioned politics? This a legal issue, both the UK and Sweden have independent legal systems which decide these things, are they corrupted? If so what do they benefit from this corruption?

Wait! I've just seen something fly quickly through the sky! Now it could be a plane of course, but that's too boring and I can't pretend that major governments are involved in some kind of huge international conspiracy, so I've decided that it's not a plane, it is in fact an alien spacecraft containing Elvis who has just gone back in time to kill JFK and Michael Jackson.

no, it hasnt. It hasnt been proven in a British court, or a Swedish court. There has been a valid EAW, through the proper channels. There hasn’t, and isn’t the need for a prima facie case to need to be made for Britain to extradite someone to Sweden. One of the reasons the EAW was invented was to reduce the amount of evidence needed for extradition. Or as your Mr David Allen Green says

[iThe main reason for the court ordering extradition was simply that a valid European Arrest Warrant (EAW) had been issued. If a valid EAW is correctly served on the correct person then, unless it can be shown that it is disproportionate, an abuse of process, or otherwise a violation of the defendant's human rights, a United Kingdom court is bound to order extradition, just as a Swedish court would be bound to order the extradition of a person requested by the UK government under an EAW

It was contended by Assange's UK lawyers that it was not a valid EAW, for it had not been issued by a competent authority. This was always going to be a difficult submission, as the EAW had already been certified by the United Kingdom's Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). But even if there was still doubt on this, Assange's own expert witnesses from Sweden confirmed that it had been validly issued. Once this fundamental question had been decided then it would have been exceptional had the EAW been refused on any other grounds.
[/i

I dont doubt it was legally correct for him to be extradited, I havent argued otherwise. Im arguing the law is wrong and we should have more checks and balances to protect people who are innocent.

you seem to be doing your best to prove me right. Ecuador isnt perfect. Wow, they must be the only country in the world to not be perfect. Not like Britain whose relationship between press and government is, of course, perfect. Damn those swarthy southern americans, you just cant trust 'em like the swedesDoes it? Was he offered asylum by a liberal utopia?

Yeah, its definitely his fault Bradley Manning has been held for 800 days without trial.
Doesnt make him a rapist.

Who has committed a crime?

They havent done so.

Julian Assange has.


I disagree, I, and the courts believe there are allegations of rape and sexual crimes in Sweden for him to answer, but what would it take for you to think he should extradited?

I'm guessing pictures, in comic book format.

No, he hasnt. He has been accused of one. Its how the justice system in this country has worked for over a thousand years. Someone is accused of something, we presume they are innocent until proven otherwise.

Even the bail jumping accusation has yet to be proven in a court of law.

No, they havent. They have judged that the procedure which resulted in an EAW being served on Mr Assange was followed correctly and as per British law should be followed. They havent judged the merit of the allegations.I think the standard of evidence should be that which would likely lead to trial in this country as a minimum.

Yes he has. He has broken his bail conditions, the entire world has seen him breach bail.

Yes they have. Are there, or are there not, allegations of rape and sexual crimes to answer in Sweden? What other definition of "having a case to answer" is there?
Of course they haven't judged the merit of the allegations, that's for a trial to do.
So you think that evidence that would be produced in a trial in Sweden should be put before a British court first? That would immediately prejudice the trial in Sweden and would lead to a defacto trial taking place in Britain.

Once again, you are demanding a trial take place before a suspect is arrested.

You do not "have a case to answer" until you are charged with an offence. Prior to that you are being questioned, not judged, and of course have the right to say nothing under questioning as you do not "have a case to answer" at that point. Until all parties have been questioned and a decision made to prosecute then there is no case to answer. It is simply an allegation under investigation - nobody who is under investigation has a case to answer, it is up to the police to gather evidence to submit to the prosecuting body to determine whether there is a case to answer. Until the point when someone says "You are formally charged with the offence of......." then there is no case to answer. That's a fundamental legal principle.

Then it needs to be proven in a court of law. Thankfully we arent in the middle ages anymore and we have moved past that kind of primitive thinking. Maybe you would like to see the mutaween patrolling Britains streets, i can see the pitfalls.

The fairly clear one of their being some corroborating evidence. We dont prosecute every allegation you know, there is a standard of evidence that needs to be met before we proceed.
No, its for the DPP to do.
No, i think, the same as we do here, in this country, that a certain standard of evidence needs to be met before a prosecution takes place.


no, im not.

So you are demanding someone be charged before being arrested?

And funnily enough, the Swedish police gathered evidence and submitted it to the prosecuting body who determined there is a case to answer and issued an arrest warrant.

yes ok Smokey, because I and the rest of the world have seen Assange break his bail that means I want religious police.

I think everyone could see a crime was committed on 9/11, it doesnt always need a court for us to know when a crime has taken place. The courts formalise it and enforce the punishment.

For the love of god Smokey lad! What do you think Swedish prosecutors are there for! It is not up to us to try a case that is under Swedish jurisdiction. The Swedish prosecutors have decided the case deserves Assange be arrested.

Yes, and the Swedish prosecutors have done so in this case. Unless you are suggesting the UK CPS should investigate the case? In which case evidence and arrests will need to be made.

Yes, which is the Swedish prosecutors job, and here in the UK that evidence is not put to the courts before a decision to charge is made, and the decision to charge is taken AFTER an arrest.

Yes you are, the only way for the courts to decide on the evidence is to have it put forward to them, and the only way to decide on the merits of that evidence is to hear evidence from the suspect who could potentially refute the evidence. That is a trial. Which cannot happen outside the relevant jurisdiction and cannot be done BEFORE an arrest.

I have said no such thing, nor have I implied it. You asked for the definition of "a case to answer", I gave you it. That is all.



Again, you are getting confused about having a case to answer. All that has been established is that there is sufficient cause for an investigation, and for that investigation to proceed properly the Swedish police need to question Julian Assange. They are not the same thing.

In terms of Swedish law and judicial process, it is a lot further down the road than there being "cause for an investigation".

The investigation is at an advanced stage and the second interview is pretty much a legal precursor to a trail.

Still haven't read those links then?

Well you seem to have no respect whatsoever for the presumption of innocence. You seem to think that punishment can and should be doled out because ‘you saw it’ and a trial in a court of law in front of 12 peers is as pointless as it is irrelevant, you have made a judgement and can proclaim guilt. After all you saw it on TV and that is of course infallible. Its not far from the mutaween
And? Are we supposed to just accept whatever Swedish prosecutors say because they are Swedish? What nonsense logic demands that we trust Swedish prosecutors of which we have no influence on the procedures or checks and balances, more than our own prosecutors?

A British court decides if he is extradited. If he is subject to a miscarriage of justice, we are complicit in it. And if we dont have the checks and balances in place to stop people being extradited to face a miscarriage of justice we have wronged.

Saying 'but they're Swedes and they told us it was alright' is a pathetic defence.

Yes, I am, shockingly, suggesting that prior to the UK justice system detaining and forcibly extraditing someone that we apply the protections, thought so necessary in this country.

There is a reason we have a DPP, there is a reason we have a CPS, there is a reason that we dont prosecute every allegation, Those reasons aren’t removed because the Swedes told us everything was ok.

That’s right, it should be up to the british court to decide whether the standard of evidence is high enough to justify a trial and extradition.
No, im clearly not. You can keep inventing this strawman if you want, but it looks silly.

Especially when you now seem to equate the examination of the prima facie case (not proved in a British court) with a full blown trial.

Quote ="Kosh"Still haven't read those links then?'" I don't need to read them to know the legal definition of having a case to answer and at what point it happens. That's why there is a formal charging process followed by a committal hearing. But if you are so obsessed with reading links then may I suggest you read this one, particularly paragraphs 167 to 169.... www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /15604.htm

Quote ="Kosh"Still haven't read those links then?'" I don't need to read them to know the legal definition of having a case to answer and at what point it happens. That's why there is a formal charging process followed by a committal hearing. But if you are so obsessed with reading links then may I suggest you read this one, particularly paragraphs 167 to 169.... www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /15604.htm

I can't be bothered going point for point with you Smokey, it simply never ends, especially you are being silly enough to suggest I want religious police - that's a great example of Godwin's Law, so I'm just going to say this -
Do you have any reason to think the Swedish prosecutors are any more corrupt or "worse" than our prosecutors or Police force? If not, why is it acceptable for a someone in Britain to be arrested and detained by British authorities but not on behalf of the Swedish?
We are not prosecuting anyone, we are merely detaining someone to be tried in a free, democratic country with an independent legal system.
The kind and amount of evidence you wish to be shown to a British court cannot happen without either prejudicing a Swedish trial or having a defacto trial in Britain.

I have no problem with us arresting and detaining someone on behalf of Sweden, as long as British protections and checks and balances put into British law to protect innocent people from wrongful and vexatious prosecution are available. The first and most obvious of those is the presumption of innocence, the second is that a standard of evidence needs to be met for a person can be punished, detained, or extradited. That is simply nonsense. We know it is nonsense because it is what happens in every trial which goes before a British court. Every single one, we don’t have a de facto trial and then a real trial, we don’t prejudice our own trials. It is ridiculous to pretend that doing that in this case would mean we prejudiced a trial or had a de facto trial when we do it every single time.

If the Swedish government can’t provide the evidence which the DPP and CPS believe would justify a trial in this country, then we should detain and forcibly extradite someone. If it wouldn’t justify detaining and trying someone here, it certainly doesn’t justify detaining and forcibly extraditing someone.

Not even sure what the argument is about now. Smokey you seem to agree that the EAW is valid and has been considered and upheld through the English courts, but you would like the law to be different than what it is. If that's a fair summary then nothing else to add?

Pretty much.

Though I would add that having a 3rd party, an independent sovereign nation able to offer asylum when our laws fail, is a good thing, and the reason we have a global recognition of asylum. It would be arrogant to think we are only a country that offers asylum and no other nation should even contemplate offering asylum from us.