10

According to an investigation of the Assange case:

The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, has refused to come to London to question Assange about allegations of sexual misconduct in Stockholm in 2010 - even though Swedish law allows for it and the procedure is routine for Sweden and the UK.

Is this, in fact, routine procedure for Sweden and the UK?

George Chalhoub
  • 30,246
  • 14
  • 129
  • 136
ike
  • 4,950
  • 1
  • 20
  • 52
  • Weird. This is merely speculation, but perhaps it's routine not for Swedish prosecutors to come to the UK, but for Swedish prosecutors to go to other countries in general, and for the UK to allow foreign prosecutors. – HDE 226868 Nov 18 '14 at 21:17
  • I've found that a [European Arrest Warrant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant) could have been involved, but so far I only have Wikipedia to say that. – HDE 226868 Nov 18 '14 at 21:44
  • 1
    @HDE226868 See this other question I asked for some sources to start with http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/23656/15980 – ike Nov 18 '14 at 21:47
  • In the context of the Assange case, the question is anyway irrelevant. The purpose of the warrant is not to question him, but to place him in detention, which according to Swedish law is possible (or depending on the accusations even mandatory) if there is a reasonable suspicion and a risk that the suspect is intending to flee prosecution. The latest ruling is from July 2014, where the warrant was upheld by the Swedish court. Most parts of the decision are made public: http://de.scribd.com/doc/234349165/Stockholms-TR-B-12885-10-O-vrigt-brottma-lsavgo-rande-2014-07-16 – Tor-Einar Jarnbjo Nov 19 '14 at 17:14
  • 2
    See [this Guardian article today](http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/20/julian-assange-appeal-arrest-warrant-swedish-court): *But the [Stockholm appeal] court also noted that Sweden’s investigation into Assange had come to a halt and prosecutors’ failure to examine alternative avenues of investigation “is not in line with their obligation – in the interests of everyone concerned – to move the preliminary investigation forward”. The ruling is expected to put pressure on prosecutors to find new ways to break the deadlock.* – user Nov 20 '14 at 19:11
  • The appeal concerned three decisions of the previous court. The ruling of the appeal court from yesterday reads three times: "The Royal Court rejects Julian Assange's request to ...". It is a little bit difficult to understand how Assange's lawyer can interpret this as that "the ruling shows we are on the right track". The entire court decision is available here: http://www.svea.se/Domstolar/sveahovratt/Pressmeddelanden/Beslut%20Ö%208290-14.pdf – Tor-Einar Jarnbjo Nov 21 '14 at 15:26
  • It is routine for one EU court to ask another EU country to extradite someone. In 99.99% of all cases either the person is extradited, to the other country refuses extradition in which case the person would have no obligation to talk to any prosecutor, or the person manages somehow to escape to another country. It would be absolutely not routine that a suspected criminal would hide for two years in some embassy. – gnasher729 Nov 24 '14 at 00:46
  • @gnasher729 Source that and post an answer. – ike Nov 24 '14 at 02:12

0 Answers0