Earlier I showed you the draft skeleton argument the defence had prepared in January in advance of the extradition hearing today. Now the defence has made available its final skeleton argument (thanks, BBC). Here it is:
Earlier I showed you the draft skeleton argument the defence had prepared in January in advance of the extradition hearing today. Now the defence has made available its final skeleton argument (thanks, BBC). Here it is:
if for no other reason this case must be notable for the fact that the skellies are being made public. has that ever happened before to your knowledge?
It seems a good place to add here a few other relevant (but not widely known) links for those who are keen to read the details:
#1.
THE SWEDISH CODE OF JUDICIAL PROCEDURE, Ds 1998:000
(English translation)
http://www.regeringen.se//content/1/c4/15/40/472970fc.pdf
#2. Two landmark rulings (overturning two rape convictions) by the Supreme Court of Sweden seem highly relevant.
They are B 1013-09 and B 1867-09, issued on 3 Jul 2009 which are reported in English at http://www.thelocal.se/20448/20090703/
Sweden’s Chancellor of Justice praised them for demanding higher standards of evidence in rape cases. (In a Swedish Radio report however, Director of the prosecutors Nils Rekke was astonished).
The full cases may be found (in Swedish) at:
http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2009/2009-07-03%20B%201013-09%20Dom.pdf
http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/Domstolar/hogstadomstolen/Avgoranden/2009/2009-07-03%20B%201867-09%20Dom.pdf
#3.
For a good insight into the current laws (which are not based on notions of consent), see:
SOU 2010:71, “Proposed amendments to the legislation on sexual crimes (27 October 2010)”
There is an English abstract summary at http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/13420/a/157339
however the full report (pdf) is worth looking at for the detailed summary in English:
http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/108/a/154515
Note that Marianne Ny and Nils-Petter Ekdahl are among the experts who produced this proposal for new legislation.
#4.
Claes Borgström was himself involved in earlier development of legislation, including a 2005 study:
http://www.thelocal.se/2292/20051014/
#5.
For some insights into serious concerns at Sweden’s practices of almost mandatory detention on remand (also applies for investigation) see reports such as the most recent at:
http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/states/swe.htm
(Reforms were promised for 2010 – but wouldn’t that then have changed Ds 1998:000 ?)
#6. For a more extensive discussion of these specific references and more about the political connections and background to the case, I refer the astute reader to comments posted on 21 Jan in the following article:
http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2011/01/assange-pilger-wikileaks
and a 70 odd pager at that – bet the judge is happy! you’d think there would be some kind of practice direction dealing with the length of skeletons, wouldn’t you…
I lived in Sweden between 1988 – 1991 and worked in the office of one of the lawyers who defended a forensic pathologist who was acquitted of the murder of Catrine da Costa. This case was marked by a widespread, sustained and quite hysterical press campaign against the pathologist and his fellow defendant, a GP. A well-researched article by Julie Bindel which appeared in the Telegraph on 30.11.10 explains the background to the case and how the case against the defendants was based on little more than the “evidence” of the GP’s wife who alleged that her nursery school age daughter had supposedly described to her the dissection of da Costa’s body and the defendants’ participation in it. The child would have been around 18 months old when the events took place.
Unfortunately, it appears that Catrine da Costa’s brutal murder was used as an excuse to promote a repressive climate in which men can be condemned of sexual offences on the strength of the most implausible stories. I don’t know whether anyone involved in that case is taking part in the current matter.
The guardian has a very good article of the injustice that is possible by the blind trust in the justice system of other European countries http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/feb/08/assange-extradition-only-tip-iceberg .
There is nothing about Sweden, however it illustrates very well the different standards in different countries.
Interestingly nobody talks about another case which has some similarities, but also some differences to the Assange extradition.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/08/shrien-dewani-extradition-hearing
This is about a murder of a newly-wed women in South Africa on her honeymoon. The women actually is from Sweden and married an businessman residing in UK. The EAW is obviously not part of this, however I guess it is the same Extradition Act, just a category 2 country.
The husband is now accused to have planned the murder and paid others to commit it.
Similarly, to the Assange case the police and prosecutor did not require the man to remain in the country until the investigation was completed, and hence now for extradition. Similar to the Swedish case, it is possible to suggest that the authorities (in this case the police chief) has some bias against the accused (he called him in public “a monkey”).
A difference in this case is, that the after the receipt of the extradition request, the accused was immediately bailed. He is also fighting his extradition on the grounds that he would not receive a fair trial.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Carl Gardner, Michal . Michal said: Assange defence arguments: https://www.headoflegal.com/2011/02/07/julian-assange-updated-defence-arguments/ […]
simplywondered,
It is not just the skeleton, but 41 other exhibits etc. to flesh him out for the chilly climate!
http://www.fsilaw.com/sitecore/content/Global/content/Julian Assange Case Papers.aspx
Total pages = ?
sorry, the link is
http://www.fsilaw.com/sitecore/content/Global/content/Julian%20Assange%20Case%20Papers.aspx
nemo – thanks but i may just do myself a favour and not read them through.
it was the selfish thought that if a junior put in a skeleton longer than about 20 pages they would get short shrift from their tribunal (and probably with good reason – the judge can’t spend longer pre-reading than they would actually hearing the bloody case) but when an eminent silk does it, he may escape censure.
Linda,
what you described about evidence from a child, reminded me of something I came across while looking into the lawyer and former equality ombudsman Claes Borgström.
In this case he helped the family reach a settlement just as it was taken to the European Court of Human Rights in June 2000.
It involved psychological “evidence” inferred from a child’s actions with a doll. It may be best not to revive attention on those concerned; look for the case of Lindelöf v. Sweden. The family’s reunion with their child and some compensation was a good outcome for them, although given CB’s other “defense” work, one wonders how sufficient it was in relation to the damage?
Reaching a settlement would have saved the government much scandal and investigations into those responsible.
Soon after he was appointed JAMO. How familiar are you with
his scandals? In April 2010 the following was reported:
“Claes Borgström, the lawyer who represented convicted serial killer Thomas Quick, has been told there will be no investigation into his conduct after reporting himself to the Swedish Bar Association ”
http://www.thelocal.se/26062/20100414/
It sounds like that was not simply deferred pending the retrial.
His CV includes:
Member of the Swedish Bar Association’s disciplinary board 1992 – 2000 .
The association’s chaiman, Tomas’s Nilsson, quoted above, is a partner in the firm where Borgstrom practiced until 2000 when he became JAMO and wound up his share in the practice and cut ties with the bar association (was that required for impartiality?).
It is a small world there.
Now I just glanced at the article by Bindel you mention, [1]
and what catches my attention is this:
“The case was to lead to a change in the law on prostitution; men who pay for sex are now criminalised.” That was passed in 1999.
Former justice minister Thomas Bodström and Claes Borgström were later on much behind this; and other proposals around 2005, though I don’t know about 1990s.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/8157585/The-real-life-Swedish-murder-that-inspired-Stieg-Larsson.html
Hmmmm! Another news item relevant to Assange’s case:
Bodström and Borgström were still at it pressing for new laws in April 2010; just 4 months before the Assange situation exploded.
“Top Social Democrats talk tough on rape”
“Punishments for the most serious rape crimes must be increased, former justice minister Thomas Bodström and former equality ombudsman Claes Borgström have urged.”.
See the full article at:
http://www.thelocal.se/25984/20100409/
They conclude with a reference to the time since they were no longer in government:
“These changes would provide substantially better protection of girls and women in Sweden. Efforts to strengthen their rights, protection and integrity should never cease, but must be developed; almost four years have now been lost in the struggle against sex crimes,” Bodström and Borgström argue.
Notable reader comments in that article highlight the previous changes in definitions which form part of Assange’s troubles, and echo what Linda has referred to:
——
13:14 April 9, 2010 by Kevin Harris
Sweden’s laws against sex crimes have become as confused as the politicians who introduced them. The Social Democrats changed the law to redefine serious sexual assaults as rape. This caused great stress on the legal system. Now, instead of correcting the error, Messrs B and B want to redefine rape, in the true English language definition of the word, as something called aggravated rape. If you don’t understand all this, that’s my point. Sweden’s police, prosecutors and judges don’t understand it either. What’s wrong with the traditional system of correctly defining sexual offences, as used by most other countries in the world?
The politically motivated legal confusion doesn’t stop with rape. Swedish politicians of all parties feel driven to appear tough on prostitution too. There is a huge difference between prostitution carried out by people free to choose to do so, and trafficking people for sexual purposes, but again, one law fits all crimes legislation is about to be applied here too, and again, the legal system will have to struggle to try to make sense of it all.
The “four years lost in the struggle against sex crimes” were nothing to do with the strength of the legislation but more to do with the fact that it’s confusing nonsense introduced by politicians who prioritise cheap votes ahead of a functioning legal system.
——
18:11 April 9, 2010 by Alexia
Assuming that the article was written in response to the hysterical “punishment” given recently to a serial rapist, i find it very devious to discuss prostitution and the need for a tighter ban of it in the same article. It’s like using a very seriously sensitive matter to address a completely irrelevant and greatly conservative idea.
On the other hand, such paradoxical phenomena are not uncommon in the Swedish culture.
——
15:52 April 10, 2010 by SteveMD
… The only independent review of this law clearly said that the Swedish police stated, before they were told to shut up and toe the line, that since this law came into force their intelligence on “trafficking” and pimping as all but dried up. …
well as we’ve got political about rape and prostitution, there are many who would argue that criminalisation of the buyer rather than the provider is a good thing. i can’t speak for whether the legal matters around rape in sweden have become confused.