This statement was written by Irmeli Krans, a Swedish police officer, on 20 August 2010 and amended on 26 August 2010. It purports to be the record of an interview with Sofia Wilen, but Sofia Wilen refused to sign the statement and has not done so to this day.
It is nevertheless this unsigned statement which the British High Court stated contains an allegation which would, if true, amount to rape. Some may recall that fact being triumphantly and aggressively read out to me on Newsnight by Gavin Esler, with no mention that the statement referred to had never been signed by the “complainant”.
The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, had told the British High Court that even though the statement was unsigned, it was valid as evidence under Swedish law (it would not be under British) because the interview was conducted before two witnesses, Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin.
Contrary to police protocol in virtually every developed country, including Sweden, the interrogation although in a police station had neither been audio recorded nor video recorded. Irmeli Krans has claimed she could not find a working dictaphone – in a major Stockholm police station that does of course have video-taping facilities.
Irmeli Krans and Anna Ardin had known each other for at least two years before they were present together at the police interview of Sofia Wilen. They had been on the same ballot paper as candidates for the same political party in a council election. They were facebook friends and had exchanged messages on a relevant subject, the abuse of power by white men:
Irmeli Krans to Anna Ardin April 2009:
Hello! Thanks for the compliment. And like you say, white men must always defend the right to use abusive words. Then they of course deny that these very words are part of a system that keeps their group at the top of the social ladder.
I will analyse Anna Ardin’s behaviour in detail in a further post in a few days. According to Ardim, Sofia Wilen contacted her concerned that unprotected sex with Assange may have given her a sexually transmitted disease. Rather than take her to a medical facility, Ardin took Wilen to a police station, under the pretext that the police might be able to compel Assange to take an STD test – which even in Sweden must be an extraordinary proposition.
Ardin did not take Wilen to the nearest police station. She took her right across Stockholm to the police station where Ardin’s friend, lesbian feminist campaigner Irmeli Krans, was serving. They arrived at 2pm and rather than see another officer, they waited two hours until Krans came on duty. Then Ardin was present throughtout Krans’ interview of Wilen – which appears to have very much informed Ardin’s presentation of her own subsequent allegation against Assange. Ardin’s “assault” by Assange took place several days before the Wilen “assault”, but was not reported by Ardin until two days after she had sat through Wilen’s interview with her friend Krans.
And always remember, Wilen refused to sign the resulting statement, given here, as a fair account of what occurred.
Statement of Irmeli Krans
Following is Krans’ interrogation of Sofia Wilén 20 August 2010, subsequently modified by Krans 26 August 2010.
Background
Sofia says she saw an interview a few weeks ago on TV with Julian Assange who is known to be behind the WikiLeaks publication of US military documents from Afghanistan. Sofia thought he was interesting, courageous, and admirable. For the next two weeks she watched the news carefully, she read a lot of articles, and saw interviews. One evening when she sat at home and Googled the name Julian Assange she discovered he was invited to Sweden to hold a lecture arranged by the social democrat brotherhood movement. She posted a message to the brotherhood press secretary Anna Ardin whose contact details she found on their website and asked if he would be coming to Sweden and if she in such case could attend his lecture. She offered to help out with practical details in return. Anna Ardin replied that she’d forward her message to those in charge.
But Sofia got no further reply and suddenly one day she saw an ad with the time and place for the lecture. The lecture was to be held in ‘LO-borgen’ at Norra Bantorget Saturday 14 August. She rang those in charge on Friday and asked if it was OK to attend. She was told she was one of the first to apply and it’d be OK. She took the day off from work and went to LO-borgen on Saturday. She saw a woman who she presumed was Anna Ardin standing outside LO-borgen and went up to her and introduced herself. Anna told Sofia that she was on the list so she was welcome to attend. At the same time the lecturer himself, Julian Assange, approached with a man in his 30s. She got the impression the man was Julian’s press secretary or something similar. Julian looked at Sofia as if he was amused. She got the feeling he thought she didn’t belong there in her shocking pink cashmere jumper amongst all the other gray journalists.
The Lecture
She sat at the far right front when she entered the venue, the lecturer would stand all the way to the left. The room seemed full of journalists. A half hour before the lecture was to begin, Anna approached Sofia and asked if she could help buy a cable for Julian’s computer. They needed a cable and Sofia had offered to help out. Sofia went up to Julian to ask what type of cable he needed. He explained what he needed and then wrote it down on a small piece of paper. She took the paper and placed it immediately in her pocket. Julian looked contemptibly at her and said ‘you didn’t even look at the note’. She told him she didn’t need to as he’d already explained what type of cable he needed.
She took a cab to the ‘Webhallen’ boutique on Sveavägen but they were closed. The time was 10:30 and the store would open first at 11:00. But that’s also when the lecture was scheduled to begin, so Sofia started feeling stressed. The cabbie drove her instead to the Haymarket where she purchaed two types of cable for safety’s sake. She got back in time, she had the right type of cable, but she wasn’t thanked for her help by Julian. The lecture went well.
The Lunch
There were many journalists who wanted to interview Julian after the lecture. Sofia stayed around because she too wanted to speak with him. She asked Anna if this was possible and Anna said Julian would stand outside the entrance to LO-borgen to be accessible to the public in case anyone wanted to ask him questions. Sofia went out and sat in the shade and waited for the interviews to be over. There were more interviews outside. Sofia approached LO-borgen again and overheard that the brotherhood people were going to treat Julian to lunch. Sofia asked if she could come along too, after all she’d helped them with the cable. She was invited and went together with Anna, Julian and his entourage, and two members of the brotherhood to a restaurant on Drottninggatan across from the Central Bathhouse. She ended up next to Julian and started talking with him. He looked at her now and again during the lunch. On one occasion when he put cheese on his knäckebröd she asked him if it tasted good and then he reached over with his sandwich and fed her with it. Later during lunch he said he needed a charger for his laptop. She said she could get one for him, after all she’d got the cable for him earlier. He put his arm around her and said ‘yes you gave me the cable’. Sofia thought this was flattering for it was obvious he was now flirting with her.
The others left after lunch, leaving only Sofia, Julian, and Julian’s companion. They went off together to buy an electric cable for Julian’s computer. ‘Kjell & Co’ didn’t have the product, so they went on to Webhallen but it was closed again. They walked back on Sveavägen towards the Haymarket and talked about what they’d do next. Julian’s companion asked him if he wanted to come along and help move furniture for his parents and Sofia offered Julian a visit at the natural history museum where she worked. It was decided Julian would accompany Sofia to the museum and his companion left them. Julian and Sofia went into the Haymarket subway station where she purchased a blue access card good for the day as he didn’t have the monthly commuter card and no money either as he said. They took the train towards Mörby Centrum and stepped off at the university stop. A man in the subway recognised Julian and told him how much he admired him.
The Natural History Museum
On the way from the university subway station Julian stopped to pet a few dogs, which Sofia thought was charming. In the museum they went to the staff room where Julian sat down and starting surfing the net, he was looking for tweets about himself. They sat there waiting for a film that was to be shown at Cosmonova at 18:00.
They were let into the cinema by Sofia’s colleague and Julian held Sofia’s hand. In the darkness of the cinema he started kissing her. A few latecomers arrived and sat behind them and so they moved to a row at the back. Julian continued kissing her, touched her breasts under her jumper, undid her bra, unbuttoned her pants, caressed her buttocks, and sucked her nipples. He muttered about the armrest being in the way. She was sitting in his lap when the lights went on and he tried to put her bra back on. She thought it embarrassing to sit there in view of her colleagues who she knew could have seen it all.
They went out through the inner courtyard and she went to the toilet. When she came out, he was lying on his back on a picnic table resting, he said he was very tired. He was supposed to be at a crayfish party at 20:00 and wanted to sleep 20 minutes before leaving. They lay down together in the grass next to each other and he had his arm around her. He fell asleep and she woke him twenty minutes later. Then they promenaded over lawns, passed cows and Canadian geese, he held her hand, it was wonderful in all possible ways and he told her ‘you’re very attractive to me’. He’d also told her in the cinema she had pretty breasts. She asked him if they’d meet again. He said of course they would, they’d meet after the crayfish party.
She accompanied him to the Zinkensdamm subway station where he caught a cab back to Anna Ardin’s where the party was to take place. He gave her a hug and said he didn’t want to part from her and encouraged her to charge her cellphone. She went home to Enköping, arriving at home at 23:00. She had a voice message waiting from Julian from 22:55 when she’d recharged her phone, telling her to ring him when her phone was working again. She rang back at 23:15, realising he was still at the party. She’d developed a stomach cramp from a sandwich she’d eaten on the way home and told him she wanted to go to bed. He insinuated it wasn’t about stomach cramps as much as a feeling of guilt.
On Monday
She rang Julian twice on Sunday but his phone was turned off. She told her colleagues at work on Monday what had happened at the weekend. They told her Julian felt dumped and therefore hadn’t rung back so that the ball was in her court. She rang him and he answered. She asked if they should do something together. He said he’d be at a meeting which could take a long time up until 20:30 but he could ring her back later. He also asked about her stomach cramps. He insinuated she’d lied about her cramps and he used the third person to tell her. She promised to wait for him so after she finished work at 19:00 she went to Kungshallarna and had sushi. Afterwards she strolled about town and ended up in the old town where she rang him back at 21:00 when he still hadn’t got back to her, asking what was going on. He said he was in a meeting in Hornsgatan and he wanted her to come there. She got the address and went there. She couldn’t find the address when she arrived, rang Julian, and spoke with a man who spoke Swedish who explained she was to get in through a side entrance. She stood there and waited for him when he came out together with a another man, they said goodbye to one another and looked very happy.
Julian and Sofia walked up Hornsgatan towards Slussen and from there to the old town. They sat by the water at Munkbroleden and he commented on girls who sat there as ‘lonely and abandoned’ and who ‘probably need saving’. They lay down and starting making out, heavily. Amongst other things he put his hands under her jumper and when they left the area she noticed people were looking at them. They decided to go home to her place. They went into the subway where his card was now invalid and she got him through by swiping her own card twice. They took the train to Enköping from the central station, she paid for the tickets, SEK 107 (~$10) each. He claimed he didn’t want to use his credit card, he didn’t want to be traced. They sat in the direction the train would move all the way back in the car. Julian connected his computer and started reading about himself on Twitter on the computer and on the phone. He devoted more attention to the computer than he did to her. She’d suggested they take in at a hotel but he said he wanted to see ‘girls in their natural habitat’.
To Enköping
It was dark when they got off the train and they passed old industry buildings where he went off to pee. She also took a pee. When they arrived at her flat she went in before him into the bedroom to clean up a bit before he saw it. They took off their shoes and the relationship between them didn’t feel warm anymore. The passion and excitement had disappeared. They made out in the bedroom but she wanted to brush her teeth. It was midnight, pitch black outside, and they brushed their teeth together – it felt banal and boring.
When they want back in the bedroom Julian stood in front of Sofia and grabbed her hips and pushed her demonstratively down on the bed, as if he were a real man. He took off his clothes and they had foreplay on the bed. They were naked and he rubbed his penis against her nether regions without penetrating her but he got closer and closer to her slit. She squeezed her legs together because she didn’t want sex with him without protection. They carried on for hours and Julian couldn’t get a full erection. Julian had no interest in using a condom.
Suddenly Julian said he was going to go to sleep. She felt rejected and shocked. It came so suddenly, they’d had a really long foreplay and then nothing. She asked what was wrong, she didn’t understand. He pulled the blanket over himself, turned away from her, and fell asleep. She went out and got her fleece blanket because she was cold. She lay awake a long time wondering what had happened and exchanged SMS messages with her friends. He lay beside her snoring. She must have fallen asleep for later she woke up and they had sex. She’d earlier got the condoms and put them on the floor by the bed. He reluctantly agreed to use a condom even if he muttered something about preferring her to latex. He no longer had an erection problem. At one point when he mounted her from behind, she turned to look at him and smiled and he asked her why she was smiling, what she had to smile about. She didn’t like the tone in his voice.
They fell asleep and when they woke up they could have had sex again, she’s not really sure. He ordered her to get water and orange juice. She didn’t like being ordered in her own home but thought ‘whatever’ and got the water and juice anyway. He wanted her to go out and buy more breakfast. She didn’t want to leave him alone in the flat, she didn’t know him well enough, but she did it anyway. When she left the flat he lay naked in her bed and was working with his phones. Before she left she said ‘be good’. He replied ‘don’t worry, I’m always bad’. When she returned she served him oatmeal, milk, and juice. She’d already eaten before he woke up and spoken with a friend on the phone.
The Assault
They sat on the bed and talked and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again and she discovered he’d put the condom only over the head of his penis but she let it be. They fell asleep and she woke by feeling him penetrate her. She immediately asked ‘are you wearing anything’ and he answered ‘you’. She told him ‘you better not have HIV’ and he replied ‘of course not’. She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She couldn’t be bothered telling him again. She’d been nagging about condoms all night long. She’s never had unprotected sex. He said he wanted to come inside her, he didn’t say when he’d done it but he did it. There was a lot running out of her afterwards.
She told him what happens if she gets pregnant. He replied that Sweden was a good country for raising children. She told him jokingly that if she got pregnant then he’d have to pay her student loans. On the train to Enköping he’d told her he’d slept in Anna Ardin’s bed after the crayfish party. She asked if he’d had sex with Anna but he said Anna liked girls, she was lesbian. But now she knows he did the same thing with Anna. She asked him how many times he’d had sex but he said he hadn’t counted. He also said he’d had a HIV test three months earlier and he’d had sex with a girl afterwards and that girl had also taken a HIV test and wasn’t infected. She said sarcastic things to him in a joking tone. She thinks she got the idea of taking the drama out of what had happened, he in turn didn’t seem to care. When he found out how big her student loan was he said if he paid her so much money she’d have to give birth to the baby. They joked that they’d name the baby Afghanistan. He also said that he should always carry abortion pills that actually were sugar pills.
His phone rang and he had a meeting with Aftonbladet on Tuesday at noon. She explained to him that he’d not make the meeting on time and he pushed his entire schedule forward an hour. Then they rode her bicycle to the train station. She paid his ticket to Stockholm. Before they parted he told her to keep her phone on. She asked if he’d ring her and he said he would.
Afterwards
She rode her bicycle home, showered, and washed her bed sheets. Because she hadn’t made it to work she called in sick and stayed home the whole day. She wanted to clean up and wash everything. There was semen on the bed sheets, she thought it was disgusting. She went to the chemist’s and bought a ‘morning after’ pill.
When she talked with her friends afterwards she understood she was the victim of a crime. She went into Danderyd hospital and went from there to the Söder hospital. There she was examined and they even took samples with a so-called ‘rape kit’.
Forensic Certificate
Sofia gives her permission for obtaining a forensic certificate.
Claimant Counsel
Sofia desires a claimant counsel she will identify later.
Sundry
Julian says his name is Julian Paul Assange and was born 31 December 1971.
Interrogator’s Comments
Sofia and I were notified during the interrogation that Julian Assange had been arrested in absentia. Sofia had difficulty concentrating after that news, whereby I made the judgement it was best to terminate the interrogation. But Sofia had time anyway to explain that Assange was angry with her. I didn’t have time to get any further details about why he was angry with her or how this manifested itself. And we didn’t have time to get into what else happened afterwards. The interrogation was neither read back to Sofia nor reviewed for approval by her but Sofia was told she had the opportunity
to do this later.
Villager, “Assange is a horrible foreign rapist who invaded the country and raped poor and helpless Swedish women. We must do everything to nail that monster!” That is only a slight caricature of the ruling view of the case in Swedish media and among those who gets a voice in media. There is no real debate about “the mess created by prosecutors” as your write. And although the highly political lawyer of the women (Borgstrom) is now involved in one of the largest legal scandals of the last decades, nobody has drawn the lines to the Assange case. (He was supposed to defend a man but seems to have sided with the prosecutor to convict him for a number of murders that this man could not have committed).
Hi Jon,
Apologies for the delay, I will attempt to answer all you questions in due course.
But first of all you asked for link backing my statement that JA is not only wanted for questioning as many posters have stated.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-are-the-british-treating-julian-assange-unfairly/11229
The problem is that most Britons would interpret questioning as police questioning. But this isn’t what Mr Assange is facing in Sweden. As barrister Anya Palmer told us, Sweden has a different system to us and in their system the formal charge comes “at a very late stage”. Granted, Mr Assange has yet to be charged – but he stands accused of four offences including rape.
The argument that Mr Assange has yet to be formally charged and is wanted “only for questioning” fell at the first hurdle in the British court system: the Magistrates Court.
During Round Two, in the High Court, it was conceded that he was wanted not for questioning but for the purpose of prosecution.
Ms Palmer said: “It is not true that Assange is only wanted for questioning. The next step in the Swedish proceedings is to conduct a second interview with him before making a decision whether to formally charge him. The prosecutor is presently disposed to charge him, unless any new evidence emerges that might change her mind”.
What’s more, if he was only wanted for questioning, he could not legally face extradition.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html
Here the best guide is the High Court judgment. In paragraph 142, the Court sets out the prosecutor’s position, and this should be read in full be anyone following this case:
“140. Mr Assange contended prior to the hearing before the Senior District Judge that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of questioning Mr Assange rather than prosecuting him and that he was not accused of an offence. In response to that contention, shortly before that hearing, Mrs Ny provided a signed statement dated 11 February 2011 on behalf of the Prosecutor:
’6. A domestic warrant for [Julian Assange’s] arrest was upheld [on] 24 November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.
7. According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange’s case is currently at the stage of “preliminary investigation”. It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.
8. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime, provide underlying material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all evidence can be presented at trial. Once a decision to indict has been made, an indictment is filed with the court. In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence within 2 weeks. Once started, the trial may not be adjourned. It can, therefore be seen that the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings. There is no easy analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure. I issued the EAW because I was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences.
9. It is submitted on Julian Assange’s behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. This is not an appropriate course in Assange’s case. The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him.
10. Once the interrogation is complete it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists. Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.’”
And in paragraph 160 of the same judgment, the High Court explains why such a requirement is not “disproportionate” as submitted by Assange’s lawyers:
“160. We would add that although some criticism was made of Ms Ny in this case, it is difficult to say, irrespective of the decision of the Court of Appeal of Svea, that her failure to take up the offer of a video link for questioning was so unreasonable as to make it disproportionate to seek Mr Assange’s surrender, given all the other matters raised by Mr Assange in the course of the proceedings before the Senior District Judge.
The Prosecutor must be entitled to seek to apply the provisions of Swedish law to the procedure once it has been determined that Mr Assange is an accused and is required for the purposes of prosecution.
Under the law of Sweden the final stage occurs shortly before trial. Those procedural provisions must be respected by us given the mutual recognition and confidence required by the Framework Decision; to do otherwise would be to undermine the effectiveness of the principles on which the Framework Decision is based. In any event, we were far from persuaded that other procedures suggested on behalf of Mr Assange would have proved practicable or would not have been the subject of lengthy dispute.”
Granted he was a bit rude, but this jumped out from Goran’s link ealier;
Facts about extraditions from Sweden to the US
Julian Assange is scared that he will be extradited from Sweden to the US. There is nothing in the history of Swedish extraditions to the US that warrants Julian Assange’s great fear. Many well known and respected people have commented on Sweden’s track record for extraditions to the US. Geoffrey Robertson QC, part of Julian Assange’s legal team in the extradition hearing in February 2011 states:
“Sweden has a deplorable record and this is quite – it’s been condemned by a number of European judicial authorities for what is called “rendition” to the CIA without going through a proper legal process.”
What is the truth? In the last 50 years not one person has been extradited to the US for espionage or military crimes. Sweden has granted residence permits to more than 430 deserters from US military forces. Not one person has been extradited to the US. Not one. (Is this True?)
In 1992 the US asked for the extradition of a CIA defector, Edward Lee Howard. Sweden refused to extradite him since we do not extradite people who are accused of political crimes. Espionage is regarded as a political crime.
What is of interest is that the Prime Minister at the time of the refusal was Carl Bildt. The same Carl Bildt that Julian Assange labels his arch enemy and a long time US Embassy informant and bed-fellow with Karl Rove.
text aside, but that is NOT a proper statement. i wouldn’t even call it a proper summary.
it is full of the interviewer opinions & in what we would say as “the interviewer is leading the witness”. the statement is more of a storytelling by the interviewer than a statement provided by the alleged victim. there is too much 3rd person. ‘she said this, she thought this, she didn’t think’ & so on. this to me makes it very clear that this is not what sofia said or thought, but what the interviewer is leading her & the reader to believe. it is a play on the conscience of the reader.
it gives no indication what questions she was asked & what replies she gave.
Jon,
Re your reply to me on ‘The Assange Case’ and my comment about ‘swathes of unredacted information’ being released by wikileaks. Thanks for the info I had not realised the journalist in question had been so negligent and was primarily to blame and my ‘swathes’ comment was probably over-egging it a bit. I would argue however that as the ultimate guardian of this information JA/wikileaks could and should have been more secure with their handling of
@CE Julian Assange can’t be accused of espionage by the USA because he is not a US citizen & has never lived there. unfortunately, the government spin doctors will manipulate people into believing otherwise.
I’m a woman and wouldn’t go to Sweden.
This all seems like a quick grab at a charge.
I don’t think it was well scripted, but I do think it was a set up.
The reason you would wait 2 hours for police advice – which is what they were supposedly there for – would be so that you could make sure that the right policeman got involved. IMO, Anna Ardin needs to be under a microscope, b/c she seems to be the prime mover in this whole thing.
A clear cut rape! scream would not have been as effective in destroying JA’s credibility. A man seeming to be screwing his way across Europe, while ‘leeching’ off a poor woman strikes it’s own cord with women. Right there, almost all women will shut down to any possibility he could be a good guy. That’s about half the population.
If only AA had yelled rape, her background would have been looked at closely and no matter what, probably half the people would never believe her, and you’d not have had the character assassination that took place. I do think character assassination was just as important to AA as getting some charge on JA. JMO.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition
‘Swedish officials handed over al-Zari and another Egyptian, Ahmed Agiza, to CIA operatives on December 18, 2001 for transfer from Stockholm to Cairo. Both men were asylum seekers in Sweden, and suspected of terrorist activities in Egypt, where torture of such suspects is commonplace. Returns to risk of torture are illegal under international law.
To cover itself, the Swedish government obtained promises from the Egyptian authorities that the men would not be tortured or subjected to the death penalty, and would be given fair trials. Despite post-return monitoring by Swedish diplomats, both men were tortured in Egypt. In April 2004, Agiza was convicted on terrorism charges following a flagrantly unfair trial monitored by Human Rights Watch. Al-Zari was released in October 2003 without charge or trial, and remains under police surveillance in Egypt.’
Professor Marcello Ferrada di Noli on why Sweden would extradite Assange.
http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/this-is-why.html
Well said KAG.
CE – yes, I’ve read the above warnings but I must challenge your contention that this extradition is for prosecution rather than questioning. It IS just for questioning – (the so-called “second questioning” in order to formally indict is rubbish – Assange has never been questioned a first time regarding Sophie Wilen, because those allegations had been formally dropped at the time of his voluntary interrogation in Stockholm on 30 August 2010) – which has been achieved by Marianne Ny lying to the UK courts.
Obverse the following pieces of testimony from the District Court hearing which found that Assange should be extradited from two former Swedish judicial experts. They are copied word-for-word from live tweets of the proceedings.
Brita Sundberg-Weitman (former Swedish judge): the decision to prosecute can only be taken after the preliminary investigation has closed.
and
Sven-Erik Ahlem (former Swedish chief prosecutor): The last thing that happens as part of the preliminary investigation is that the suspect has a right to see all the material collected and also comment on whether he/she wants to hear more witnesses.
JJ (Assange junior lawyer): The prosecutor cannot make the decision on whether to prosecute until then?
SEA: That’s correct, unless there’s a risk of prescription (?)
But, as we all know, the basis on which Justice Riddle ruled that the extradition was lawful was that there was a clear intention to prosecute, confirmed in the late statement submitted to the UK court by the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny that you refer to. This appears to be in direct contravention of Swedish law, which states unambiguously that she is not allowed TO DECIDE to prosecute until ALL questioning (including the questioning about SW’s experience, which hasn’t happened to date) has been completed and the preliminary investigation is over.
This makes a recent statement by Marianne Ny (more exactly, the Swedish Prosecution Authority on her behalf) reproduced on a Swedish Foreign Office blog after all the brou-hah of the police embasy raid very interesting:
“Some people are wondering why Mr Assange cannot be questioned at Ecuador’s Embassy in London. It is the Swedish Prosecution Authority that processes matters concerning surrender to Sweden under a European Arrest Warrant. In this case, the Prosecutor has made the assessment that Mr Assange needs to be available in Sweden during the preliminary investigation, hence the arrest warrant. A more detailed account of this can be found on the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s website. In brief, the Swedish Prosecution Authority writes that there is a need, during interviews with Mr Assange, to be able to present, and question him about, the evidence that has emerged in the investigation, and to be able to carry out supplementary interviews with him and other persons involved as the investigation continues.”
“As the investigation continues” – Do you see what she has done there? The process is now back to preliminary investigation, well ahead of any formal charges being laid – to bring it back in line with Swedish law. But an extradition has been achieved which is illegal by anyone’s standards. Note that this latest statement offers no valid reasons why Assange needs to be in Sweden, simply that Ms Ny has decided so. Note also she claims that the EAW was issued for the purposes of a preliminary investigation, although this is completely contrary to one of the fundamental principles of the EU Framework Directive. The EU Framework Directive is quite clear: extradition is NOT for the purposes of furthering an investigation. The Irish Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the EU Framework Directive did not allow for extradition without charge a few months ago, but our UK High Court has allowed it in Assange’s case. The UK’s parliament when drafting the UK Extradition Act 2003 specified that a ‘judicial authority’ meant a court or judge – precisely to avoid this kind of scenario where an INVESTIGATING prosecutor orders an extradition – but the UK Supreme Court overruled parliamentary intent (blatantly!). Please do not rely on the UK court rulings in this case as having been fair, proper and impartial – they are all judgments driven by the underlying politically desired outcome.
Marianne Ny should be investigated for her abuse of legal due process. She has deliberately misled the UK courts and lied on the EAW warrant (in at least two different ways) and this EAW, which the courts here relied on in their judgments, should be ruled invalid and the extradition struck out.
Sysreboot,
I agree, but I think that just adds to the argument that their is next to no chance of the US being successful in extraditing JA from Sweden. In fact I’d argue he has more chance of being extradited from the UK, which cravenly hands over it’s own citizens to the US.
Has anyone noticed that the trolls who inhibit this blog never change their minds even when clear facts are presented to them? They are here with an agenda, an agenda of disruption from the truth. Some are downright rude.
Arbed,
The EAW (whether you consider it invalid or not is inconsequtional, JA has lost every time he has challenged it in court) states;
That Julian Assange is requested to be “arrested and surrendered for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution” He is not sought for the purpose of questioning.
Scottish blogger edinburgheye has the full transcript of Naomi Woolf’s sort of apology and her getting owned by Mumsnet. Fabulous.
http://edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/naomi-wolf-says-sorry-sort-of/#more-9253
CE 8.57pm
“Julian Assange is requested to be “arrested and surrendered for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution” He is not sought for the purpose of questioning”
So, they are just going to skip asking him questions about Sophie Wilen then? Head straight to indicting him and trial without the allegations relating to her? The process is NOT at the stage you and our idiot courts say it is. There can be no “second questioning immediately prior to formal prosecution” if there hasn’t even been a first questioning, can there?
I won’t even ask your opinion about what kind of prosecutor makes up her mind to prosecute on allegations of a sexual nature without even bothering to hear one side’s version of events in what amounts to a he said/she said scenario. I’m just SO pleased our courts – in their rush to strong-arm THIS particular extradition through (yes, strong-arm is the right word… much like the UK’s later behaviour outside/inside the embassy on the night of 15 August. I was watching the livestream that night) – have decided that such a person is a suitably ‘impartial judicial authority’ to allow UK citizens to be hoicked across Europe in future, without formal charges.
Arbed, the whole prosecution team together with the plaintiffs, all of whom belong to the Social Democrat Party: Marianne Ny, Claes Borgström, Irmeli Krans, Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen, are the ones in need of investigation. Believe me the deal has already been done between William Hague, Sweden and the CIA. Otherwise the very simple assurance could be given to put an end to this nonsense. Assange says he would answer questions in Sweden with that assurance. The reason it is not given is Hague, and his US masters, together with NATO’s latest warmonger addition, Sweden, have done the deal. Thank God Assange had the common sense to seek asylum.
No court in Europe, excepting the UK, would hand pick the judges to comply with the extradition of Assange on such a flimsy case (a case to which he has already answered questions. It is not true that further questions could not be asked in this country. A Swedish prosecutor and the police interrogated a man in Spain on suspicion of the more serious crime of murder.
Arbed,
There has already been a first questioning.
In The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
ON APPEAL
FROM HER MAJESTY’S HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) (ENGLAND AND WALES)
Neutral citation of judgment appealed against: [2011] EWHC 2849
(Admin)
BETWEEN:
JULIAN PAUL ASSANGE
Applicant
v
SWEDISH PROSECUTION AUTHORITY
Respondent
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ISSUES
10. On 30th August 2010, the Appellant, who had voluntarily remained in
Sweden to cooperate with the investigation, attended for police
interview in respect of the ongoing Preliminary Investigation in respect
of AA’s report. He answered all questions asked of him.
“Believe me the deal has already been done between William Hague, Sweden and the CIA. ”
Link?
CE, and this goes for other trolls, read what Hague said. He would only guarantee that Assange would not face execution. Use your brain! If the deal wasn’t done why would Hague not give the assurance?
What I am curious about – is he is in effect, imprisoned.
Will any of his forced detention inside the embassy count towards an possible sentence? What would the penalty for such a crime as not using a condom even have, IF there was a conviction? If this time does not count as time served, IMO, it should.
I’ll catch up later. I’ve just been baited by a troll who asked me to provide a link that it would not read! I’m losing the plot.
CE – 9.21pm
Oh, I get it. You are deliberately ignoring my careful explanation above that Assange was questioned on 30 August about ONE – get that, ONE, not even all three – of Anne Ardin’s allegations, because that was the only one which remained ‘live’ after ALL other allegations had been formally dropped by the prosecutor. That’s in, Case Closed, but please answer the nice policeman’s questions about the one non-sexual molestation offence I would still like looked at.
He has NEVER been questioned about the ‘rape’ allegation made by Irmeli Krans following Sophie Wilen’s visit to the police. Please fetch me a link proving that interrogation has taken place.
I think I’m right in saying too that it is only that latter allegation which meets the minimum potential sentence required to justify extradition at all. So they are extraditing on the basis of an allegation on which he has never been questioned.
KAG,
The Charges (whether you believe them to be legitimate or not), are much more serious than just ‘not using a condom’. Which to do so without consent is a serious crime, despite what you may think.
John Goss,
According to your ‘deal’, under which charge is JA in line to be successfully extradited (through both the Swedish and British courts) to the US on?
er “It is a common and justified belief that lesbians are biased against men” – come offit.
otherwise, I am now so confused by all these ‘links’ and opinions, and finding the whole testimony thing so distasteful, that I’ve rather lost sight of the man holed up in a small room in a strange embassy for months, with the US, and their track record, breathing down his neck. I’m sure that’s not the intention.
CE, thanks for the Channel4 FactCheck piece – interesting. A couple of responses.
Firstly, FactCheck speak to Niall McCluskey, an extradition and criminal lawyer, who says: “the only politics is from Assange himself. He is suggesting that America has got it in for him”. One statement that sounds spiteful rather than simply a legal opinion, and another that pours scorn upon the idea that the US would wish to seek retribution against Assange. So I would probably reserve judgement on this point.
The items from Mrs Ny, 9 and 10, are worth further consideration. I guess 10 must be the answer to 9, since 9 in itself does not explain why an interview in London could not be carried out under Mutual Legal Assistance. We should also remember that Ny is not a disinterested party, and so is not above reproach on these questions.
Item 10 suggests Assange must be in Sweden to be interviewed so that the back-and-forth between witnesses and other experts can be coordinated, presumably in the timeframe required by Swedish law. I can understand the logic to a degree – if the police have to travel to London then it makes it more difficult to travel back to Sweden to further the investigation, and then to go back to London to continue questioning and/or to charge. But then why not do it over the telephone, or a recorded video link? This very reasonable point remains unanswered.
So I don’t think it has been established that questioning could not take place in London. From Brita Sundberg-Weitman:
Also, this from Sven-Erik Alhem:
(Source)
Interestingly, the suggestion that the EAW was specifically raised because of an intention to charge, rather than just question, does not seem to have always been the case. This is what is now being claimed, since otherwise the EAW would have been invalid (one cannot be raised just for questioning in the English sense). From Ny herself:
Another person in the Swedish prosecution system added much the same thing, a week or so later:
(Source).
So I wonder if the differences between us are about the measure of “proportionality”, in the legal sense? If so, I would suggest that since Assange made himself repeatedly available for questioning or charging whilst he was in Sweden, he has shown good faith in the past. I am also unsure as to why this prosecution (presumably relating to AA) has resurfaced, given that it has been closed once already.
With these mix of circumstances as they are, I think the balance on the extradition issue ought to hang in Assange’s favour (I make no claim here about the sexual allegations, which is a separate question). This is in part because of the necessary public interest test I mentioned previously, but also due to the number inconsistences in the case, of which I only raise a couple. This is why the Supreme Court’s decision appears to be wrong – a lack of proportionality, coupled with no defence against reasonable suspicions of political interference.
CE: no, not to use condom is not a ‘serious crime’, unless deliberate harm was intended (ie the non-user was aware they had HIV). It is either a dereliction of thought in the throes of passion or an act of selfish fuck-wittery.
Remember how all these discussions got started? Craig Murray reported that some FCO insiders had told him that the US govt. was very keen to see JA extradited to Sweden.
That is good enough for me to know that there is more to this case than an allegation of rape.