Courts in the UK looked at many questions, including would the allegation against Assange constitute rape in the UK, and did the prosecutor have the authority to issue the EAW. Here are extracts from the magistrate's ruling:
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court
(Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons
I make the following findings of fact from the evidence I have heard: ...
2. In Sweden, a person interrogated for rape is normally detained and held incommunicado during the process. These decisions are taken by a court.
....I heard live evidence from a recently retired Swedish prosecutor. Mr Alhem told me in there is nothing wrong with the EAW in this case. Similarly Brita Sundberg-Weitman said that Ms Ny is entitled to issue an EAW, although not on the facts as she understood them to be. Mr Hurtig is a Swedish lawyer. He may not be an expert on extradition but nevertheless he must have been well placed to discover whether Ms Ny had the appropriate authority, and he has not suggested otherwise. Ms Ny herself has made a statement saying she has the appropriate authority. .... I was also taken to original documents, including the Swedish Code of Statutes. Section 3 says, with reference to the EAW: “A Swedish arrest warrant for the purpose of criminal prosecution is issued by a prosecutor. ... Ms Ny’s details are provided and she signed the warrant. Even without the SOCA certification I have no doubt that Marianne Ny issued the warrant and is a “judicial authority which has the function of issuing arrest warrants”. ...
Assange: would the rape allegation also be rape under English law?
The Magistrates’ Court ruled (emphasis added):
The position with offence 4 is different. This is an allegation of rape. The framework list is ticked for rape. The defence accepts that normally the ticking of a framework list offence box on an EAW would require very little analysis by the court. However they then developed a sophisticated argument that the conduct alleged here would not amount to rape in most European countries. However, what is alleged here is that Mr Assange “deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state”. In this country that would amount to rape.
----------
No, this doesn't work for you since you want him to be guilty before he's even moved.
No, I don't. I just think the question should be answered in court if the allegations are strong enough to support a trial.
If you are thoughtful, you may see some irony in this:
Sweden Angered By Julian Assange Fight, Says It Won't Extradite Him If He Faces Death Penalty
The rape allegation is the most serious and if proven in court could lead to up to four years in jail.
The lawyer for the two women stood by the allegations and criticised Assange for not coming back to be questioned.
"It's an abuse of the asylum instrument, the purpose of which is to protect people from persecution and torture ... It's not about that here," Claes Borgstrom told Reuters.
"He doesn't risk being handed over to the United States for torture or death penalty. He should be brought to justice in Sweden. This is completely absurd."
At the same time, Assange might not have that much to worry about, said law professor Christian Diesen. He noted that in practice nine out of 10 cases of alleged rape are dropped by prosecutors before coming to court.
"But where there are no witnesses, no pictures and no technical evidence, only the accusation of the woman against the man and he says that sex was consensual, then normally the situation is that the word of the woman will not be enough for a conviction," Diesen told said.
Assange is likely to stay in that embassy for much longer than the possible prison time he faces in Sweden, and he will now always have this cloud over him long into the future since he does not deal with it. Why do you suppose that is?
