A British judge has ruled that Julian Assange be extradited to Sweden to face sexual assault allegations.
Following more than two days of hearings this month at a London magistrate's court, Judge Howard Riddle ordered that the 39-year-old Australian and WikiLeaks founder be sent to Stockholm to face charges of rape and sexual assault.
The silver-haired Australian sat in the dock of the court showing no emotion as Judge Riddle read: "I must order that Mr Assange is extradited to Sweden".
"I have specifically considered whether the physical or mental condition of the defendant is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him," Judge Riddle said.
"In fact, I am satisfied that extradition is compatible with the defendant's convention rights. I must order that Mr Assange be extradited to Sweden."
He added that Assange had seven days to lodge an appeal the against the decision.
"Clear and specific allegations have been made against Mr Assange in Sweden," Judge Riddle said, adding that it was reasonable for authorities to request he be in Stockholm for questioning.
The allegations against Assange include three counts of sexual assault and one of rape, against two women on two separate occasions in August 2010.
Judge Riddle recounted details of the women’s claims: that in one case Assange "deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity".
His actions included holding her arms, forcing apart her legs and putting his body weight on top of her to prevent her movement, later rubbing his erect penis against her naked body.The allegation involving the second woman is that Assange had unprotected sex with a woman who was sleeping, knowing she would not consent to unprotected sex and constituting rape.
Judge Riddle rejected arguments by Assange's lawyers that the Swedish prosecutor in charge of the investigation was not authorised to order the extradition and had made a mistake.
"Here, there is simply no reason to believe there has been a mistake," he said.
"The prosecution has been meticulous and left no stone unturned."
The court continues to discuss Assange’s bail status.Since December 14, his conditional bail has required he live at an English country estate and report daily to police.
Geoffrey Robertson QC, representing Assange, said there were some difficulties if bail were to be continued in its current form, including the electronic "bracelet" that his client is required to wear to monitor his whereabouts.
"You know what the problem is: that it does restrict his exercise. He can't run, for example," Mr Robertson told the court. "The electronic tag does, for example, make it difficult to run."
Without having made a formal decision on bail, Judge Riddle said the current measures were necessary.
"There is a need for the authorities to know where somebody is on a daily basis," he said.
Dressed in a dark grey suit with red tie, Assange held a notebook and pen throughout Thursday's ruling but wrote down little.
Earlier, he strode confidently pass waiting media and into the court complex, smiling and chatting with his legal representatives
The smile was nowhere to be seen after Judge Riddle’s ruling, with Assange clasping his hands and shifting in his seat.
"On the information I have, it does not seem unreasonable for a prosecutor in a serious matter such as this to expect and indeed require the presence of Mr Assange in Sweden for questioning and, if necessary, to take a DNA sample," Judge Riddle said.
from: The Sydney Morning Herald
Judge Riddle? This sounds like something out of Batman!
AntwortenLöschenThis is so obviously a stitch up!
If the facts leaked in the case and my understanding of Swedish law are correct, Assange really does need to go back and answer questions. There is enough evidence to justify that step. Where it goes from there is another matter, and allowing extradition to the US would be a travesty of justice. Of course there is no indication Sweden is willing to do that at this point.
AntwortenLöschenIt seems the British Court had little choice, given the evidence it received from Sweden, but to go through with the extradition. I don't know anything of the Swedish judicial system, but hopefully the proceedings will be just. Extradition to the US would be preposterous. I can't see what US laws were broken. He is not a US citizen so therefore could not be tried for treason. I'm sure the conservatives would try to gin something up. Hopefully, the US Justice Department would live up to it's name.
AntwortenLöschenI think extradition to the US would be very difficult, if I read the legalities right. There is no extradition treaty between the EU and the US for treason, for a start, and that's on top of the fact that Assange isn't a US citizen. Then there is the argument that the US would not give him a fair trial.
AntwortenLöschenI think it may come down to the public perception of Assange in the US. How is he regarded there? Will there be pressure put on the US government to try and extradite him or rather to be seen to be trying?
Exactly. What law was broken? What would be the criminal charge? Spying? That's a stretch for releasing public records. This is a non-starter for the US government. Maybe you're right. All that would be necessary for the right would be the 'perception' of the pursuit of extradition. They would be appeased, angry for sure, but none the wiser.
AntwortenLöschenSomewhere you can be sure there have been meetings behind closed doors on the best way to handle this between the US and Europe. It's all smoke and mirrors. It's always smoke and mirrors.
AntwortenLöschen