All that the GP's statement requires is that you don't punish any more than is required for deterrence.

That would mean conducting research into the severity of punishment required to deter the commission of different crimes - and if you found that (for example) imprisoning people for over two years doesn't increase the deterrence effect, the sentence would never be over two years unless either rehabilitation or public protection required it.

Legality is simply the inverse of illegality.

If something is "legal" that does not mean that you have a right to do it which cannot be abridged. The legislature can ban things that are legal. You are thinking of things to which you have a constitutionally protected right, which are a subset of the set of things that are legal.

(Source: I'm a lawyer)

This seems a bit odd to me - I understand you to say that you either have an expectation of complete privacy or no expectation of privacy. Why is it not correct to say that a woman in a short skirt accepts the risk that a strong breeze might lift it up, but not the risk that someone might put a camera in their shoe and use it to peer up her skirt?

This is not, by the way, the logic used by the court, which was not based on expectations of privacy. The Court found that a statute that refers to people who are "partially nude" does not include people wearing skirts that are "bypassed" using a camera.

Legality is simply the inverse of illegality. If you define what is illegal you also define what is legal, because anything that is not illegal is legal and vice-versa. Where it is unclear whether something is illegal, it is also by necessity unclear whether it is legal.

Putting my lawyer's hat on, I think that this is pretty unlikely. It's generally the case that if you provide for liquidated damages (which just means an upfront statement of the damages in the contract - here, the $80k) then you can't then sue for more if the damage proves to be more serious than you anticipated.

That's not an answer, because it doesn't tell me what you mean by "the legal process". Unless you explain how you think the legal process uses evidence I can't know what you mean.

If you are serious, all you need to do is write down what your logical process is. If you don't, well, it's very convenient that every time you're challenged on evidence or logic there's a reason that you can't answer the question.

As I said before, I'm not asking about the legal process. I'm asking about the logical process by which you personally are using the facts from the extradition hearing to determine that Assange is innocent.

I continue to believe that you are deliberately avoiding the question because you have no answer.

I'm not asking what the legal process is; I'm asking what your chain of logic is that allows you to determine whether someone is guilty based on the evidence at an extradition hearing, where guilt wasn't in issue.

Here's what I think the position is: I think you're avoiding the question because you know that you can't come up with a logical answer, just like you refused to provide a link to the Swedish court case because you know it doesn't exist, and you refused to identify your evidence because you didn't have any. If I'm wrong, all you have to do is type in your solid logical chain and press submit.

There needs to be a case that satisfies the requirements for an extradition order. Those requirements do not include proving Assange is guilty, or likely to be guilty, or providing one single word of evidence proving his guilt.

If you don't like my ABCD provide your own chain of reasoning.

OK, so help me out:

A. There is a hearing at which the prosecutor does not need to provide evidence of guilt.
B. At the hearing the prosecutor does not provide evidence of guilt.
C. ??
D. Assange is not guilty.

Are you saying (i) that there is no need for C, D just follows logically from A and B; or (ii) there is a need for a C - in which case what goes there?

I'm afraid I don't quite follow.

You accept that the extradition hearing was not trying to determine whether or not Assange was guilty. The prosecutor needed to prove that the European arrest warrant was valid, but didn't need to prove that Assange was guilty. The prosecutor provided evidence to show the arrest warrant was valid, but didn't provide evidence to prove that Arrange was guilty.

What's the significant of the prosecutor not providing evidence for something that they didn't need to provide evidence for?

Right, I think we've got to the position that I thought we might be in to start with. The only public case that you were basing all this on is the extradition hearing - the hearing in which the Court expressly stated that it was not judging Assange's guilt; in which there was literally no consideration of the evidence in relation to one of the allegations, and only cursory consideration in relation to the others; and in which the Swedish prosecutor didn't even appear.

I suppose if you want to come to a settled judgement on that basis, that's your prerogative. I suspect that it's too big of a gap for us to come to agreement; and in any case the legal system, like me, considers it only to have been a preliminary hearing.

Every little bit of information that has been leaked about this case has been reproduced on a thousand websites. If a case had been presented there would be innumerable translations and commentaries - it would be easy to find. A cynic would say that the reason you're refusing to give the link is that you know it doesn't exist.

To respond to your specific comments:

I know that there was an extradition hearing (judgment text). However, as I explained before, the case did not have to be presented at that hearing, and was not presented at that hearing. The Court reviewed a very small amount of material to ensure that the formal requirements of the Framework Decision were met - that's all. If you're basing a conclusion about Assange's innocence or guilt on that judgment you're building a tower without any foundations.

My use of the phrase "criminal case" was not an accident. My point is that there are no filings that form part of the process by which Assange's guilt or innocence are assessed. You refer me to the English extradition hearing, but that hearing did not (and could not) make any judgement about his guilt.

I still can't find this case that's open for inspection. The Swedish prosecutor has a chronology which doesn't refer to any charges having been filed. Justice for Assange has a list of available documents that doesn't include any Swedish case, and states that "no charges have been filed". If you know of this publicly available case, post it! I would love to read it! But nobody else - including the prosecutor and campaigners - seems to have any idea that it exists.

The reason that I ask you to post a link to the case that you refer to isn't that I'm lazy and want you to do the work - it's that I think that we are at cross purposes, and you are referring to something that I don't recognise as being a case that's sufficient to judge Assange's innocence or guilt. If you will just post the source that you're relying on we can get to the bottom of it quickly.

It might be helpful to point out that the judge in this case, Lord Justice Laws, is a Court of Appeal judge sitting in the High Court - this could be a coincidence, but it's likely a reflection of the case being taken seriously and allocated an extremely experienced and senior judge.

Lord Justice Laws has ruled against the Government in a number of extremely high-profile cases, including the first case of a judge suspending the operation of a properly passed statute. He is well known for his view that the Courts have a constitutional power to uphold fundamental rights against Parliament, and that it is the role of the Courts (rather than political forces, which is the majority view in British jurisprudence) to hold Parliament and the Government to account. For any American Slashdotters, I'll also clarify that our judges are not political appointments and there is no realistic way that the Government could force him out.

My point is that Law LJ is absolutely not able to be pushed around by the Government. I don't really believe that any of our senior judges are, but if you were looking for a judge who would err in favour of the executive, he is exactly the person you would not want. You can criticize the law - and I would tend to agree with you that it is too broad - but it's certainly not the case that a verdict in favour of the Government was inevitable regardless of the facts.

Could you provide a link to the evidence that you consider to be complete?

My understanding is that:

• i) the case has not been presented;
• ii) there has been no "filing" in the criminal case against him;
• iii) the case - such as exists at the moment - is not open for public inspection (if it were, it would be a bit odd for the pro-Assange websites to be trumpeting leaked documents, surely?).

I think that if you post a link to the fully presented case it will probably clear things up.