Talk:Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority

Assange left Sweden in September 2010 and was arrested in his absence the same day ?
‘In August 2010, when the rape claims were first made, Assange voluntarily remained in Sweden and presented himself to the police. After assessing the evidence, the chief prosecutor said “no crime” had been committed and that the file would be “closed.”’

‘The case against Assange was reopened a month later by a different local prosecutor. From 8 to 14 September, Assange repeatedly offered to be questioned but no interview was arranged. The prosecutor advised Assange on 15 September that he was free to leave Sweden, which he did.’

https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/assange-swedes-uk-obstructed-sex-crime-investigation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.107.91 (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Assange arrested in Sweden?
I removed the following
 * Later that day, the duty prosecutor ordered the arrest of Julian Assange on the suspicion of rape and molestation.

If there was an order, I am pretty sure Assange was not actually arrested, and talked to the police in Sweden some days later. The referenced link is dead. So some research is required if this is to go back in, was he actually arrested or not?

Prosecutor Ny's abuse of process// extradition warrant.
"the Swedish authorities have never explained why they refuse to give Assange a guarantee that they will not extradite him" (a red herring that the Assange camp continues to spread, explained numerous times)  Sources: explained numerous One reference is a Nordic Page and the other is the Guardian.  "This week, Amnesty International called on Sweden to provide a guarantee that if Assange travelled there to answer questions over the sex-crime allegations, he would not be sent on to the US for charges connected to WikiLeaks' publication of thousands of US diplomatic and military cables" There was a blase response from Sweden "A spokeswoman for the Swedish foreign ministry said the country's legislation did not allow any judicial decision like extradition to be predetermined."  Sweden's response would appear to be absolute nonsense. Immunities from prosecution are routinely handed out to all sorts of criminals in exchange for example information or testimony. In Assange's case despite already having Assange's statement, prosecutor Ny unreasonably issued an extradition process to drag Assange back to "Sweden" for "questioning". (Eventually a Swedish court ruled Assange's presence in Sweden was unnecessary for Ny's investigation) Ny's unwarranted actions further fueled Assange's well documented and subsequently justified fears that he was being persecuted. Sweden has done nothing to dispel the allegation that Ny conspired to have Assange extradited to face the rage of the United States for publishing evidence leaked largely by it own appalled citizens. Prosecutor Ny is at the center of the extradition process. That an English court upheld Ny's warrant to extradite Assange when his presence in Sweden was unnecessary for Ny's investigation brings the English Courts into disrepute. Its a basic legal principle that a court can not order an unnecessary act Lets look at a hypothetical situation. The English Crown Prosecution Service resists Ny's warrant because it clearly unnecessary to have Assange present in Sweden to further Ny's investigation.  Does this cause a diplomatic incident? No It is the just application of law. Does this prevent Ny from investigating Assange. No. In fact it expedites Ny's investigation by removing an unnecessary process. Does this prevent Ny from charging Assange? No Nye already has Assange's police statement and many others and can charge him in absentia. Does this prevent the United States from extraditing Assange. No. The USA has an extradition treaty with the UK and is using it. Does this allow Assange freedom and procedural justice? Yes. Assange can conduct his business and defend himself against persecution.<P> Does this cost the UK taxpayers millions of dollars? No. It is unlikely this course of action would cost much at all.<P> Does this deny alleged victims justice. No. Assange can be criminally charged or civil action taken against him.<P> Is anyone in any way hindered. Not significantly. Assange may still need to attend court. Ny has her nose put out of joint.<P> Is this a proper course of action for English Crown prosecutors. Yes. Prosecutors are officers of the court that are bound to assist the court act judicially. Court Officers are liable for the consequences of errors in law. <P>

<P> I just cannot see a valid reason for Ny issuing a warrant to extradite Assange who had already made his statement. Assange had a Swedish lawyer and would not be making further admissions. Short of torture or some sort of hypnotism to extract a confession what could be gained. I suppose there was the possibility of trying on some sort of honey trap operation to ensnare Assange or laying bogus charges of some sort as police forces often do. Then again I guess Ny may just have wanted to meet the famous Julian Assange. Maybe Ny thought she could seduce Assange or something similar. Whatever her reasons, it was a crazy thing for Ny to do resulting in a very disturbing and successful abuse of process.


 * None of this is in the article, which is odd. Also, not a word about Sweden justice dropping the charges and in which circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.125.155 (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Not minor edit
My edit shows as minor but that is wrong. I added text and citations and moved text to fix timeline order. It was not a minor edit sorry Softlem (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

BLP: Charges vs allegations
The wording in this article stated that there were legal (criminal) charges against Assange; this was a WP:BLP violation. Overall, the sources do not support the claim that charges were filed: there were allegations and an arrest warrant. (Some sources are sloppy and write "charges".)

I have.

I've left in a quote from Assange in his initial reaction, in which he apparently thought that charges had been filed.

I've left in the loose usage of the word "charge" in the United Nations finding section on arbitrary detention. In this case, e.g. The UK and Swedish governments denied the charge of detaining Assange arbitrarily it's clear that there is no criminal charge against two governments, since governments are (almost) never charged with criminal actions (the crime of aggression can in principle be charged against governments, and there are some court cases against govts, but that's clearly not the case here). Moreover, governments are not individuals. So the BLP risk seems low in this section. But if someone wants to improve the wording, that probably would be possible. Boud (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)