FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Assange and Swedish Extradition

by BINOY KAMPMARK

In his decision on Thursday, Judge Howard Riddle, district judge of Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court in South London found in favor of Marianne Ny of the Swedish authorities that the Australian national be extradited to Sweden to face interrogation for alleged sexual offences.

The evidence against the prosecution had strengths that Judge Riddle cited in his judgment.  For instance, the Swedish lawyer Brita Sundberg-Weitman’s expert report argued that proper procedures had not been followed, citing the disproportionate nature of the European Arrest Warrant.  The prosecutor was accused of malice and improper motives.  Amongst other problems was the very public nature of the case against Assange.  Confidentiality has been breached by details leaked to the press.  He has effectively suffered a well-directed character assassination in Sweden.

Nor was she the only one to take aim at Ny.  For one thing, there was much head scratching as to why no effort was made on her part to interview Assange once a statement of rape was taken.  For witness Bjorn Hurtig, such foot dragging was inexplicable.  Any credible lawyer was entitled, at that point, to regard the case as closed.

Riddle claims he is following the book on matters regarding extradition between Sweden and Britain that have been in place for some time.  But not even Sundberg-Weitman’s critique of the Swedish procedures could sway him.  No collateral purpose could be discerned in Ny’s case and the prosecution case held up.

Assange’s response was to be expected, calling the court’s response a ‘rubber stamping process’. ‘There was no consideration during this entire process as to the merits of the allegations made against me.’  His lawyers have taken aim at Sweden’s Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt for creating something of a ‘toxic atmosphere’.  Judge Riddle was not convinced.  ‘Politicians,’ he simply asserted, ‘may speak inappropriately.’

Assange was determined to throw the book out a long time ago, as his tracts on free information and authoritarian government suggest.  Assange sees information webs of conspiracy, and these conspiracies will only ever be destroyed if those links of information are severed.  There is little in this case that will make him change his mind – the conspiracy of judicial enforcement is afoot.

There are indeed very troubling points with the case.  One salient point is that no charges have actually even been filed.  In the second instance, there is nothing stopping the Swedish authorities conducting their own interrogations in Britain.  The British authorities are bound to be accommodating in this regard.

As one of the witnesses Sven-Eric Alhem noted, a prosecutor should not have sought to arrest Assange only for purposes of questioning as long as other options were available.  He should know, having served as the Chief District Prosecutor in Stockholm and subsequently Director for the Regional Prosecution Authority in the same city.

And on the issue of the closed trial for rape, should it ever go to court?  In the words of counsel for Assange, Geoffrey Robertson, ‘Any sense of fair play – that justice must be seen to be done – revolts at this Swedish practice.’  For that reason, the defense argued that Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights would be violated should Assange be extradited.  Judge Riddle fobbed it off.   ‘If the Swedish practice was in fundamental and flagrant breach of human rights I would expect there to be a body of cases against Sweden confirming that.’  The rest, it seems, is silence.

Assange did not do himself any favors by leaving the country in the first place.  His departure  played heavily on the judge’s mind.  But the next stage of the process seems a bit unnecessary, given the means open to those in Stockholm.  The legal saga is set to continue, with an appeal process to be undertaken to see if the extradition order can be reversed.  Assange has become a figure, not merely in the debate on abolishing state secrets, but in the matter of law reform in Sweden.

BINOY KAMPMARK was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

February 28, 2017
Behrooz Ghamari Tabrizi
A Paradigm Shift in the Middle East: Iran as the Solution, Not the Problem
stclair
Big Brother Capitalism Strikes Back
Stephen Cooper
Trump’s Pusillanimous Immigration Policy Imperils the Public and the Police
Vincent Emanuele
The Madness of U.S. Empire
Michael Sainato and Chelsea Skojec
We Need the Endangered Species Act Now More Than Ever
David Underhill
Oops, They Did It Again: Crowd Bowls Over Rep in Beery Alley
John Eskow
Jimmy Kimmel is a Total Dick and Other Reflections on the Oscars
Steve Horn
Trump’s Top Energy Aide, Mike Catanzaro Peddled Climate Change Denial
Jack Random
The Trump Diaries: Week Five
Robert Fisk
The Education of Marine Le Pen
Pauline Murphy
Felicia Browne’s Fight Against Fascism
Mary Lynn Cramer
Fearing the Trump Impeachment
Mel Gurtov
While Our Attention is Elsewhere, Climate Change Worsens
Dan Bacher
Extinction 2017: California Edition
Abel Cohen
The Trojan President: America Never Saw It Coming
February 27, 2017
Anthony DiMaggio
Media Ban! Making Sense of the War Between Trump and the Press
Dave Lindorff
Resume Inflation at the NSC: Lt. General McMaster’s Silver Star Was Essentially Earned for Target Practice
Conn Hallinan
Is Trump Moderating US Foreign Policy? Hardly
Norman Pollack
Political Castration of State: Militarization of Government
Kenneth Surin
Inside Dharavi, a Mumbai Slum
Lawrence Davidson
Truth vs. Trump
Binoy Kampmark
The Extradition Saga of Kim Dotcom
Robert Fisk
Why a Victory Over ISIS in Mosul Might Spell Defeat in Deir Ezzor
David Swanson
Open Guantanamo!
Ted Rall
The Republicans May Impeach Trump
Lawrence Wittner
Why Should Trump―or Anyone―Be Able to Launch a Nuclear War?
Andrew Stewart
Down with Obamacare, Up with Single Payer!
Colin Todhunter
Message to John Beddington and the Oxford Martin Commission
David Macaray
UFOs: The Myth That Won’t Die?
Weekend Edition
February 24, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Exxon’s End Game Theory
Pierre M. Sprey - Franklin “Chuck” Spinney
Sleepwalking Into a Nuclear Arms Race with Russia
Paul Street
Liberal Hypocrisy, “Late-Shaming,” and Russia-Blaming in the Age of Trump
Ajamu Baraka
Malcolm X and Human Rights in the Time of Trumpism: Transcending the Master’s Tools
John Laforge
Did Obama Pave the Way for More Torture?
Mike Whitney
McMaster Takes Charge: Trump Relinquishes Control of Foreign Policy 
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Decline of US and UK Power
Louisa Willcox
The Endangered Species Act: a Critical Safety Net Now Threatened by Congress and Trump
Vijay Prashad
A Foreign Policy of Cruel Populism
John Chuckman
Israel’s Terrible Problem: Two States or One?
Matthew Stevenson
The Parallax View of Donald Trump
Norman Pollack
Drumbeat of Fascism: Find, Arrest, Deport
Stan Cox
Can the Climate Survive Electoral Democracy? Maybe. Can It Survive Capitalism? No.
Ramzy Baroud
The Trump-Netanyahu Circus: Now, No One Can Save Israel from Itself
Edward Hunt
The United States of Permanent War
David Morgan
Trump and the Left: a Case of Mass Hysteria?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail