Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority
|Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority|
|Court||Supreme Court of the United Kingdom|
|Full case name||Julian Paul Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority|
|Decided||30 May 2012|
|Citation(s)|| UKSC 22|
|Prior action(s)||Assange v The Swedish Judicial Authority  EWHC 2849 (Admin)
(2 November 2011)
|Appealed from||Administrative Court
(Sir John Thomas P · Ouseley J)
|Appealed to||Supreme Court|
|Judges sitting||Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Baroness Hale of Richmond
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore
Julian Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority is the set of legal proceedings in the United Kingdom concerning the requested extradition of Julian Assange to Sweden to further a 'preliminary investigation' into accusations of his having committed sexual offences.
- 1 Swedish investigation
- 2 Extradition process
- 3 Clarifications
- 4 References
- 5 External links
Complaints and initial investigation
On 20 August 2010, two women, a 26-year-old living in Enköping and a 31-year-old living in Stockholm, went together to the Swedish police in order to track him down and persuade him to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases after having separate sexual encounters with him. The police told them that they could not simply tell Assange to take a test, but that their statements would be passed to the prosecutor. Later that day, the duty prosecutor ordered the arrest of Julian Assange on the suspicion of rape and molestation. 
The next day, the case was transferred to Chefsåklagare (Chief Public Prosecutor) Eva Finné. In answer to questions surrounding the incidents, the following day, Finné declared, "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape." However, Karin Rosander from the Swedish Prosecution Authority, said Assange remained suspected of molestation. Police gave no further comment at that time, but continued the investigation.
After learning of the investigation, Assange said, "The charges are without basis and their issue at this moment is deeply disturbing."
The preliminary investigation concerning suspected rape was discontinued by Finné on 25 August, but two days later Claes Borgström, the attorney representing the two women, requested a review of the prosecutor's decision to terminate part of the investigation.
On 30 August, Assange was questioned by the Stockholm police regarding the allegations of sexual molestation. He denied the allegations, saying he had consensual sexual encounters with the two women.
On 1 September 2010, Överåklagare (Director of Public Prosecution) Marianne Ny decided to resume the preliminary investigation concerning all of the original allegations. On 18 August 2010, Assange had applied for a work and residence permit in Sweden. On 18 October 2010, his request was denied. He left Sweden on 27 September 2010. The Swedish authorities have asserted that this is the same day that they notified Assange's lawyer of his imminent arrest.
On 18 November 2010, Marianne Ny ordered the detention of Julian Assange on suspicion of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. The Stockholm District Court acceded to the order and issued a European Arrest Warrant to execute it. The warrant was appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal which upheld it but lowered it to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation rather than three, and the warrant was also appealed to the Supreme Court of Sweden, which decided not to hear the case. At this time Assange had been living in the United Kingdom for 1–2 months. An extradition hearing took place in an English court in February 2011 to consider an application by Swedish authorities for the extradition of Assange to Sweden. The outcome of the hearing was announced on 24 February 2011, when the extradition warrant was upheld. Assange appealed to the High Court, and on 2 November 2011, the court upheld the extradition decision and rejected all four grounds for the appeal as presented by Assange's legal representatives. £19,000 costs was also awarded against Assange. On 5 December 2011, Assange was refused permission by the High Court to appeal to the Supreme Court. The High Court certified that his case raised a point of law of general public importance. The Supreme Court subsequently granted permission to appeal, and heard the appeal on 1 and 2 February 2012. The court reserved its judgment and dismissed the appeal on 30 May 2012. Assange has said the investigation is "without basis". He remained on conditional bail in the United Kingdom until on 19 June 2012 Assange sought refuge at Ecuador's Embassy in London and was granted temporary asylum. On 16 August 2012 he was granted full asylum by the Ecuadorian government.
On 18 November 2010, the Stockholm District Court ordered Assange detained in absentia, on request by prosecutor Marianne Ny. As basis for the ruling, the court stated Julian Assange to be suspected on reasonable grounds to have committed rape (våldtäkt), unlawful coercion (olaga tvång), and three cases of sexuellt ofredande — which has been variously translated as "sexual molestation", "sexual assault", "sexual misconduct", "sexual annoyance", "sexual unfreedom", "sexual misdemeanour", and "sexual harassment".
As special reasons for the detention, the court named a risk of the suspect absconding or avoiding justice; that the penalty for the alleged crimes is at least two years imprisonment; and the lack of any obvious reason not to detain.
The decision was appealed by Assange on 22 November to the Svea Court of Appeal, which two days later upheld the warrant but lowered it to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation rather than three. On 30 November Assange appealed to the Supreme Court of Sweden which decided not to consider a further appeal as no principle was at stake.
Review of detention order
On the 24 June 2014, The Guardian reported that Assange's lawyers filed a request to Stockholm District Court to dismiss his detention, based on an update to Sweden's code of judicial procedure (1 June 2014) to conform with EU law including a new provision that those arrested or detained have the right to be made aware of "facts forming the basis for the decision to arrest".
On 16 July 2014, the Stockholm City District Court reviewed the detention order on request by Assange. During the course of the proceedings, Assange's defence lawyers said that the prosecutors have a "duty" to advance the case, and that they had shown "passivity" in refusing to go to London to interview Assange. After hearing evidence, the district court concluded that there is probable cause to suspect Assange of committing the alleged crimes, and that the detention order should remain in place.
In response, Assange's Swedish legal team stated to Radio Sweden: "We still think we have very good legal arguments to get this decision overruled, so we are confident in the result of the appeal. We think the court of appeal can make another decision on the same arguments as the district court." Ecuador immediately issued a statement "The Ecuadorian Government reaffirms its offer of judicial cooperation to the Kingdom of Sweden, to reach a prompt solution to the case. In this sense Ecuador keeps its invitation to judicial officers visit the London Embassy so that Julian Assange can be interviewed or via videoconference. Both possibilities are explicitly referred in the current procedural legislation in Sweden and the European Union."
First instance proceedings
Detention and bail
Assange presented himself to the Metropolitan Police the next morning and was remanded to London's Wandsworth Prison. On 16 December, he was granted bail with bail conditions of residence at Ellingham Hall, Norfolk, and wearing of an electronic tag. Bail was set at £240,000 surety with a deposit of £200,000 ($312,700).
On release on bail, Assange said "I hope to continue my work and continue to protest my innocence in this matter," and told the BBC, "This has been a very successful smear campaign and a very wrong one." He claimed that the extradition proceedings to Sweden were "actually an attempt to get me into a jurisdiction which will then make it easier to extradite me to the US." Swedish prosecutors have denied the case has anything to do with WikiLeaks.
The extradition hearing took place on 7–8 and 11 February 2011 before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court in London. Assange's lawyers at the extradition hearing were Geoffrey Robertson QC and Mark Stephens, human rights specialists, and the prosecution was represented by a team led by Clare Montgomery QC. Arguments were presented as to whether the Swedish prosecutor had the authority to issue a European Arrest Warrant, the extradition was requested for prosecution or interrogation, the alleged crimes qualified as extradition crimes, there was an abuse of process, his human rights would be respected, and he would receive a fair trial if extradited to Sweden.
The outcome of the hearing was announced on 24 February 2011, when the extradition warrant was upheld. Senior District Judge Howard Riddle found against Assange on each of the main arguments against his extradition. The judge said "as a matter of fact, and looking at all the circumstances in the round, this person (Mr Assange) passes the threshold of being an accused person and is wanted for prosecution." Judge Riddle concluded: "I am satisfied that the specified offences are extradition offences."
Assange commented after the decision to extradite him, saying "It comes as no surprise but is nevertheless wrong. It comes as the result of a European arrest warrant system run amok."
Appeal to the High Court
On 2 March 2011, Assange's lawyers lodged an appeal with the High Court challenging the decision to extradite him to Sweden. Assange remained on conditional bail. The appeal hearing took place on 12 and 13 July 2011 at the High Court in London. The judges' decision was reserved, and a written judgment was delivered on 2 November 2011, dismissing the appeal.
Appeal to the Supreme Court
The High Court refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, but this was granted by the Supreme Court itself, after the High Court certified that a point of law of general public importance was involved in its decision.
The point of law certified was whether the wording Judicial Authority in the 2003 Extradition Act was to be interpreted as a “person who is competent to exercise judicial authority and that such competence requires impartiality and independence of both the executive and the parties” or if it “embraces a variety of bodies, some of which have the qualities of impartiality and independence …and some of which do not.”
The court granted Assange two weeks to make an application to reopen the appeal after his counsel argued the judgments of the majority relied on an interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that was not argued during the hearing. The application was rejected on 14 June, thereby exhausting Assange's legal options in the United Kingdom.
Ecuador asylum request
|Wikinews has related news: Assange seeks asylum in Ecuadorian embassy|
Since 19 June 2012, Assange has lived in the Embassy of Ecuador in London, where he asked for and was granted political asylum. Assange’s lawyers have invited the Swedish prosecutor four times to come and question him at the embassy, but the offer has been refused.
Assange has said he would go to Sweden if provided with a diplomatic guarantee that he would not be turned over to the United States but the Swedish foreign ministry stated that Sweden's legislation does not allow any judicial decision like extradition to be predetermined.
Assange is arrested in his absence and wanted for questioning in relation to accusations against him of rape and sexual molestation. This is the first step in the criminal prosecution procedure in Sweden, and only after the questioning will the prosecution authority be able to formally indict him.
The prosecution's arguments for wanting to interview Assange in Sweden
The Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny said that, in accordance with the Swedish legal system, charges can be laid only after extradition and a second round of questioning. In sworn written testimony which she submitted to the Westminster Magistrates' court for Assange's hearing, she stated: "Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched 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."
On the 1st of July 2014, the prosecutor Marianne Ny released a statement in Swedish in which she addressed the question of whether it is still necessary to put Assange in pre-trial custody in Sweden (known as häkte.) She said that there are still grounds for wanting to put Assange in häkte, as, according to her, there is sufficient cause to believe that he may have been responsible for the crimes that he is alleged to have committed. Additionally, he is viewed as a flight risk.
She also reiterated her reasons for not wanting to interview Assange in London, which she had expressed in an earlier statement. According to her, it is vital that Assange be available in Sweden in case the police investigation results in a trial, and in case he is found to be guilty and receives a sentence. Also, Assange's unwillingness to allow himself to be extradited cannot be viewed as a reason for the prosecutor to change her mind about putting him in häkte, she explained.
She also addressed the question of whether Assange has been deprived of his freedom for a disproportionate length of time. According to the prosecutor, it was his own decision to question the validity of the European arrest warrant that caused delays. Extradition would happened quickly if it had not been contested. It is her view that Assange cannot be regarded as being currently deprived of his freedom as he is out of the reach of the British police and is in the Ecuadorean Embassy of his own free will. He cannot also be viewed as being deprived of his freedom when he was out on bail to the extent that it could be seen as disproportionate or the equivalent of being in häkte. The only period during which Assange has been deprived of his freedom to this extent, according to Marianne Ny, is the period of the 7–16 December 2010.
Assange defenders argue that Presumption of Innocence in European Convention on Human Rights Article 6 might make this 2 year Plus lock up of Assange in Ecuadorean Embassy as being imposed by Swedish Prosecutor stand, indirectly and Sweden would need to take responsibility for consequential 2 year Plus period as a result of its Prosecutor's stand of not wanting to interview him in London.
Statute of limitations
The statute of limitations in Sweden is five years for unlawful coercion and 10 years for rape, which means that it will no longer be possible to charge Assange based on these allegations after 2020.
- "Judicial Sittings For Hilary Term", Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (2012) p. 4.
- Douglas Stanglin (September 2010). "Sweden reopens rape investigation against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange". USA Today.
- "Justice for Assange – Investigation". April 2012. "In the February Hearing, all of the expert witnesses testified that there had been serious irregularities in the way Sweden’s preliminary investigation was being handled."
- Cody, Edward (9 September 2010). "WikiLeaks stalled by Swedish inquiry into allegations of rape by founder Assange". The Washington Post. Retrieved 9 September 2010.
- "Sex accusers boasted about their 'conquest' of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange". The Times of India. 9 December 2009. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
- Hosenball, Mark (7 December 2010). "Special Report: STD fears sparked case against WikiLeaks boss". Reuters. Retrieved 2011-03-29.
- Nick Davies (17 December 2010). "10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange". Guardian. Retrieved 2011-03-11.
- "Chronology". Swedish Prosecution Authority. Retrieved 28 November 2012.
- "Swedish rape warrant for Wikileaks' Assange cancelled". BBC. 21 August 2010.
- Davies, Caroline (22 August 2010). "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange denies rape allegations". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 February 2011.
- "Timeline: sexual allegations against Assange in Sweden". BBC News. 16 August 2012.
- "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange questioned by police". The Guardian. 31 August 2010.
- "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange questioned by police". The Guardian. 31 August 2010. Retrieved 19 February 2011.
- Leigh, David; Harding, Luke; Hirsch, Afua; MacAskill, Ewen (30 November 2010). "WikiLeaks: Interpol issues wanted notice for Julian Assange". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 December 2010.
- "Assange charges: Consensual sex or rape?". msnbc.com. 8 December 2010. Retrieved 19 February 2011.
- "Timeline: sexual allegations against Assange in Sweden". BBC News. 2010-12-16. Retrieved 2011-03-29.
- "Assange denied Swedish residence permit". The Local - Sweden. 18 October. Retrieved 5 March 2011.
- "Rundle: timeline of Assange’s visit to Sweden and events that followed". Crikey. Retrieved 2011-03-29.
- Esther Addley (8 February 2011). "Julian Assange's accusers sent texts discussing revenge, court hears". Guardian. Retrieved 2011-03-12.
- Whalen, Jeanne (8 February 2011). "Sweden Questions Assange's Departure". The Wall Street Journal.
- "Wikileaks' Assange faces international arrest warrant". BBC News. 20 November 2010.
- "Wikileaks' Julian Assange loses extradition appeal". BBC News. 2 November 2011.
- "Supreme Court Protocoll". http://undermattan.com. Retrieved 2012-11-28.
- "Julian Assange wins right to pursue extradition fight". The BBC. 5 December 2011. Retrieved 13 December 2011.
- Assange extradition case is heard by Supreme Court
- "Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court". BBC News. 30 May 2012. Retrieved 30 May 2012.
- "Tell-All on WikiLeaks' Assange Coming out in March". ABC News. 18 February 2011. Retrieved 19 February 2011.
- "Wikileaks' Assange appeals over Sweden arrest warrant". BBC News. 1 December 2010. Retrieved 19 February 2011.
- Timeline: sexual allegations against Assange in Sweden BBC. 16 August 2012
- In the Certified European Arrest Warrant of 6 December 2010
- In the Extradition Ruling of 24 February 2011
- Vinthagen Simpson, Peter (24 November 2010). "Swedish court rejects Assange appeal". The Local. Retrieved 20 February 2011.
- "Did he or didn't he? The murky politics of sex and consent". Theage.com.au. 2010-12-12. Retrieved 2011-05-14.
- Mackey, Robert (2010-08-23). "Swedish Prosecutor Hopes to Conclude Investigation of WikiLeaks Founder Soon - NYTimes.com". Thelede.blogs.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2011-05-14.
- "Court of Appeal Protocol". http://undermattan.com. Retrieved 2012-11-28.
- "Hovrätten fastställer häktningsbeslut". www.aklagare.se. 2010-11-24. Retrieved 2011-03-29.
- Verkaik, Robert (7 December 2010). "Arrest warrant on Assange to be served today". The Independent. Retrieved 19 February 2011.
- "Julian Assange makes fresh bid to break deadlock in Swedish rape case". The Guardian. 24 June 2014.
- "Assange files case to dismiss Swedish warrant". Justice for Assange. "On Tuesday 24th of June at 1pm CET, Julian Assange’s lawyers filed a request to Stockholm District Court to rescind the decision to detain him without charge."
- Crouch, David (17 July 2014). "Julian Assange's lawyers will appeal against ruling to uphold arrest warrant". The Guardian. Retrieved 17 July 2014.
- "Decision concerning a detention order". http://domstol.se. Retrieved 2014-07-16.
- "Assange team confident of Appeal Court win". 17 July 2014.
- "Ecuador reaffirms its commitment in defense of human rights, freedom and the life of Julian Assange". 16 July 2014.
- Addley, Esther (17 December 2010). "Q&A: Julian Assange allegations". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 February 2011.
- "Extradition part of 'smear campaign': Assange". The Local. 17 December 2010. Retrieved 20 February 2011.
- Coles, Isabel; Ormsby, Avril (16 December 2010). "WikiLeaks' Assange walks free on bail in London". Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 16 December 2010.
- Ormsby, Avril (17 December 2010). "WikiLeaks' Julian Assange says he is victim of smear campaign". The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved 20 February 2011.
- "Besieged Assange hires PR team". The Sydney Morning Herald. 8 January 2011. Retrieved 8 January 2011.
- Addley, Esther (11 January 2011). "WikiLeaks: Julian Assange 'faces execution or Guantánamo detention'". The Guardian. Retrieved 13 January 2011.
- "Lawyer: WikiLeaks Founder Cannot Get Fair Trial in Sweden". Voice of America. 11 February 2011. Retrieved 11 February 2011.
- Dodd, Vikram (8 December 2010). "Julian Assange extradition attempt an uphill struggle, says specialist". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 February 2011.
- Jeffery, Simon (8 February 2011). "Julian Assange extradition hearing – final day live updates". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 February 2011.
- "Wikileaks founder Julian Assange refused bail". BBC News. 8 December 2010. Retrieved 8 December 2010.
- Coleman, Clive (24 February 2011). "Wikileaks' Julian Assange handed 'resounding defeat'". BBC News. Retrieved 25 February 2011.
- Addley, Esther; Topping, Alexandra (24 February 2011). "Julian Assange attacks 'rubber-stamp' warrant as he loses extradition battle". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 February 2011.
- Meikle, James (3 March 2011). "Julian Assange lodges extradition appeal". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 March 2011.
- Gordon, PA, Cathy (3 March). "WikiLeaks' Assange appeals against UK extradition". Reuters. Retrieved 5 March 2011.
- Assange v. Swedish Prosecution Authority  EWHC 2849 (Admin)
- "Assange case set for July". The Independent. 7 April 2011. Retrieved 9 April 2011.
- "Wikileaks' Julian Assange extradition decision deferred". BBC News. 13 July 2011.
- Booth, Robert; Addley, Esther (28 October 2011). "Julian Assange extradition judgment due on Wednesday". The Guardian.
- "Supreme court judgement". the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. 2012-05-30. Retrieved 2012-12-04.
- Owen, Paul (2 February 2012). "Julian Assange extradition appeal at supreme court - Thursday 2 February". The Guardian.
- Assange v The Swedish Judicial Authority  UKSC 22
- "Further statement – Julian Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority," United Kingdom Supreme Court, 30 May 2012. Accessed 30 May 2012.
- Julian Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority: Application to re-open appeal, Supreme Court, 14 June 2012. Accessed 18 March 2014.
- "Assange loses final legal bid to block extradition to Sweden," Zee News, 14 June 2012. Accessed 14 June 2012.
- Reuters, 19.06.2012
- AFP (24 June 2012). "WikiLeaks founder wants guarantee he won't be sent to US". Agence France-Presse. Retrieved 16 August 2012.
- Guardian, September 2012
- "City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court - The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange".
- "Why is the prosecutor not able to question Mr Assange in the UK?". 1 July 2014.
- "Yttrande till Stockholms tingsrätt i häktningsfråga". 1 July 2014.
- "Mål B 12885-10, Enhet 11, Julian Assange ./. allmän åklagare angående våldtäkt m.m.; nu fråga om omprövning av häktningsbeslut". 1 July 2014.
- Per Nyberg,Laura Smith-Spark (16 July 2014). "Assange detention order remains in place". CNN. Retrieved 17 July 2014.
- SwedenVersusAssange.com - extensive information on the case from the Committee to Defend Julian Assange
- Assange in Sweden: The Police Protocol (Translated)
- The judicial authority in Sweden-v-Julian Paul Assange - Findings of facts and reasons - judiciary.gov.uk - 24 February 2011
- "Legal Myths About Assange Extradition" from the New Statesman
- "Assange and Legal Myths"