in Uncategorized

It was the CPS who decided to appeal

The CPS has phoned me to confirm it took the decision to appeal bail yesterday in Julian Assange’s case – without consulting the Swedish prosecutor. The CPS spokesman stressed to me that this is usual practice in extradition cases. The CPS makes all decisions on bail, apparently. That is in line with article 12 of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision.

It follows that it’s the CPS who consider Julian Assange a “flight risk”, and who oppose bail.

Write a Comment

Comment

34 Comments

  1. It it remarkable that unanimous press reports have portrayed the Swedish Prosecution Authority as being one of the parties in both court hearings so far. This shows once again how easily incorrect facts become “truth” in this matter. Thanks for being a voice of reason!

  2. Not remarkable at all Avinor. I suspect the CPS were very happy to let the Swedes take the blame. Possibly by misdirection but I don’t rule out outright lies. I expect we will see much more of the same since it seems questionable that they should ever have approved the EAW In the first place.

  3. Yeah of course they didn’t decide together – as if. They really think we’re all bloody idiots.

    This formula will be followed if they get Assange extradited to Sweden. Then, miraculously, there will be a warrant from the US. Then, miraculously, the British authorities will say they have no right to interfere and approve the extradition. And the lickspittles that the swedes have proven themselves to be will hand over Assange as quickly as they handed over innocent men for rendition to be tortured.

  4. “Not remarkable at all Avinor. I suspect the CPS were very happy to let the Swedes take the blame. Possibly by misdirection but I don’t rule out outright lies. ”

    This is all a bit confusing but did anyone ask the CPS or Swedish prosecutors about bail before today? Looks like as much lazy reporting as anything else. it’s just simpler to say ‘Swedish prosecutors’ than try to establish which particular move was taken by which prosecutor.

  5. listings for Administrative Court and Divisional Courts RCJ

    Thursday 16 December 2010

    Before MR JUSTICE OUSELEY
    Thursday 16 December, 2010
    At half past 11
    FOR HEARING
    CO/12844/2010 Swedish Judicial Authority v Assange

  6. I’m getting a little worried for Assange due to his defence team seeming to have dropped the ball a few times already.

    1. Not knowing that cash was required by the courts to post bail (is bankers draft ok?);
    2. Not asking pertinent questions such as who is demanding bail not be given (Sweden or someone else. Thanks to this blog we know it’s the CPS);
    3. Not having already set up a defence fund so people can donate towards Assanges’ legal fees;
    etc etc.

  7. I had been saying the Swedes were up to some thing up!! and I knew that they were playing the 2 faced game and passing the buck between them and the CPS……they have had a good juggling act going on so far. both of them pointing the finger the oppposite direction..
    Now its up to Julians attys to be 100 steps ahead of the game… if they are going to have any chance to save him from the bloddy yanks… and yes i can really beleive that they are already plotting and planning.. how to kidnap him off the streets. ….I wouldnt put it past them…they seem to love to do this to folks..they hate!!
    Also its commom knowledge that the CPS has the last say as to where they can fling you too…its is in the EAW detials.
    hang in there. Julian,..,.WE ARE ROOTING FOR YOU!!

  8. Does anyone know where the idea that the Swedes were opposing bail came from? Who started the ball rolling? This is a major error and the whole of the world’s press went with it. Thank you

  9. The Swedish Prosecutor posted a “clarification” ca 24 h ago at
    http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/
    It also points out that the door is actually not totally closed to
    further extradition to other EU countries.

    And remember first the inidcation was they would not appeal;
    then they said that was a misunderstanding…

    Please see the link. Also comments on this and telephone
    to someone here:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/16/wikileaks-latest-julian-assange-bail-appeal#block-10

  10. Thank you nemo, for taking the time to put that information up. Very kind of you.

  11. You are welcome.

    I just found your site – are you mostly in the legal profession?

    Does relevant info from here get distilled down and passed on to
    the actual counsel?

    I’ve used my research skills to pick up quite a bit of relevant background on Sweden – gender politics, party politics,
    net privacy, exports, neutrality vs US informal arrangements… etc.
    I’m also finding some insights into the backgrounds of some of
    the key players in this drama.

    I’d welcome it if someone with an open but precise mind and some time might propose a way to collaborate so as to put together my notes into a more readable and considered form, with a view of bringing it to the attention of those whom it my just possibly help.
    (sorry no email for this – these forms are horrible and have a delay)

    Also re my previous link – see the links there to notes on roles
    of the prosecutor for Accused and Victim and appointing counsel
    and the Victim requesting evidence and the forms of investigation.
    Perhaps someone would like to put it in context and consider the objectivity and independence etc…

    Please keep in “conversation”…

  12. Well the news is great, once they rope in the celebs to put pen to paper.

    One of the useful sites I located is translating Swedish material
    and putting it into context. This note caught my eye as highly significant .
    Please spell this out in context of rules on who is pressing the prosecution. She reportedly also left Sweden.

    Anna Ardin made a “Tony Hayward statement”:

    http://www.skandinaviflorida.com/web/sif.nsf/d6plinks/JEIE-8C7GV2

  13. According to her blog she is currently in a little village called Yanoun (population 90 ppl) on the West Bank studying Arabic. I think you can put the whole conspiracy theory that this was honey trap staged by CIA to rest. There is no evidence to support that.

    If you have any questions about the Swedish legal system I’ll try and answer them.

  14. It seems a little inconsistent that the CPS sometimes claims of being instructed by the Swedish prosecutors and sometimes not.

    Also, it was as I have read Gemma Lindfield who seems to be a representative of the Swedish prosecutors that was claiming that Sweden was afraid that Assange would abscond. Maybe that’s where the the confusion came from.

  15. The guardian life blog is citing the CPS which creates again more confusion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/16/wikileaks-latest-julian-assange-bail-appeal#block-53 ). According to the CPS the Swedish Director of Prosecution fully supported the appeal against bail, however, it is not said who took the initiative.

    Interesting also in the background of the some cables that where leaked today, which confirmed, as had already for long time been reported by media, that the US took influence on prosecutors in Germany and Italy not to charge CIA agents for crimes committed in those countries. Interesting question if there might any undue influence by politicians on prosecution services in this case.

  16. Anders,

    your answers would be most welcome. Most of my questions
    already raised have been implied or requests for explanation in general terms.

    First to clarify, re your comment #16, if that was replying to my #15; you are raising a theory neither I nor the reference I gave mentioned.
    Earlier I had made reference to http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/
    and pages below that, which give a very cursory overview of the
    roles and procedures followed by the prosecutor. I was asking for someone to expound upon these and the two roles of
    the prosecutor – first as an objective investigator treating each
    side in a balanced way and gathering evidence; then deciding if there was a case to take to court; and then leading the prosecution in court acting for the victim. To me these two roles seem very “muddled” and unobjective. Would you mind explaining?

    The reference I made in #15 to http://www.skandinaviflorida.com
    was a translation of one of the two women making a statement
    comparable to that of BP’s CEO Tony Hayward after the
    Gulf Oil Spill. She reportedly tweeted (see my ealier ref):
    “I’m sick and tired of everything going on, does it never end? Anyways, I would like to let the theoretics know that “the other” pushing for it as much as I did.”

    I was asking for this to be put into context of the rules about
    pressing charges etc.

    This leads one to suspect that she and perhaps the other woman
    might not now be pressing charges (and maybe never did)
    nor (one suspects) asked for the re-examination.
    As I understand it, the prosecutor is compelled to act, on
    behalf of the public, so to say, and also as a measure to protect
    victims of serious crimes from intimidation.
    Hence it would appear that the Victims are not in any position to
    withdraw charges (accusations?), it is entirely in the prosecutor’s
    hands. Is this so?

    What are the rules regarding evidence (changing, retracting, adding new) in general in such a situation?
    Do the Victims face any repercussions for giving false or misleading or omitting evidence?

    I see from the rules that the Accused may ask the prosecutor to obtain further evidence, but this may be declined.
    Please explain this some more? Surely there will be a
    tendency to decline such requests so as to help to win the case.
    Also – how far might this go – such as a sub-poena for phone or
    internet records?

    Getting back to the extremely ironic situation that one of the women’s blogs indicated she had left Sweden, what powers does
    the prosecutor have to ensure that a Victim cooperates with the investigation, the Accused’s requests for evidence, and then if it gets
    to court, to actually turn up in person and be cross-examined?
    i.e. does the prosecutor start extraditing a Victim so as to
    press a case in the public interest?

    Anders, your illumination on these points would be most welcome.

    (Carl , my apologies that this is drifting away from the title topic –
    please see my request halfway in #14 for a suitable way to organise
    and contribute various pieces found on this ever bifurcating drama.)

  17. txwikinger,

    on the topic of cables you mentioned in #19, there are also
    some on the same matter in relation to the prosecutor and Govt.
    in Spain which would be worth looking for, as well as the coverage
    in El Pais. They were released early in Dec.

    The US was unhappy to deduce the German and Spanish prosecutors were in communication so they (USA) could not play off each country in isolation.
    They were also suggesting that if the operatives were charged in the USA, then that would prevent extradition to Europe.
    Much more besides…

    What is also very interesting is to look at the cables
    released concerning Sweden (and neighbours) and the
    timing and news and govt announcements and embarrassed
    justice minister and a constitutional inquiry resulting from them
    concerning Sweden’s neutrality.
    As I hinted earlier, there much more to understand in that direction…

  18. Anders,

    your answers would be most welcome. Most of my questions
    already raised have been implied or requests for explanation in general terms.

    First to clarify, re your comment #16, if that was replying to my #15; you are raising a theory neither I nor the reference I gave mentioned.
    Earlier I had made reference to http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/
    and pages below that, which give a very cursory overview of the
    roles and procedures followed by the prosecutor. I was asking for someone to expound upon these and the two roles of
    the prosecutor – first as an objective investigator treating each
    side in a balanced way and gathering evidence; then deciding if there was a case to take to court; and then leading the prosecution in court acting for the victim. To me these two roles seem very “muddled” and unobjective. Would you mind explaining?

    The reference I made in #15 to http://www.skandinaviflorida.com
    was a translation of one of the two women making a statement
    comparable to that of BP’s CEO Tony Hayward after the
    Gulf Oil Spill. She reportedly tweeted (see my ealier ref):
    “I’m sick and tired of everything going on, does it never end? Anyways, I would like to let the theoretics know that “the other” pushing for it as much as I did.” (see link for full item)

    I was asking for this to be put into context of the rules about
    pressing charges etc.

    This leads one to suspect that she and perhaps the other woman
    might not now be pressing charges (and maybe never did)
    nor (one suspects) asked for the re-examination.
    As I understand it, the prosecutor is compelled to act, on
    behalf of the public, so to say, and also as a measure to protect
    victims of serious crimes from intimidation.
    Hence it would appear that the Victims are not in any position to
    withdraw charges (accusations?), it is entirely in the prosecutor’s
    hands. Is this so?

    What are the rules regarding evidence (changing, retracting, adding new) in general in such a situation?
    Do the Victims face any repercussions for giving false or misleading or omitting evidence?

    I see from the rules that the Accused may ask the prosecutor to obtain further evidence, but this may be declined.
    Please explain this some more? Surely there will be a tendency to decline such requests so as to help to win the case.
    Also – how far might this go – such as a sub-poena for phone or
    internet records?

    Getting back to the extremely ironic situation that one of the women’s blogs indicated she had left Sweden, what powers does
    the prosecutor have to ensure that a Victim cooperates with the investigation, the Accused’s requests for evidence, and then if it gets
    to court, to actually turn up in person and be cross-examined?
    i.e. does the prosecutor start extraditing a Victim so as to
    press a case in the public interest?

    Anders, your illumination on these points would be most welcome.

    (Carl , my apologies that this is drifting away from the title topic –
    please see my request halfway in #14 for a suitable way to organise
    and contribute various pieces found on this ever bifurcating drama.)

  19. Anders,

    your answers would be most welcome. Most of my questions
    already raised have been implied questions or requests for explanation in general terms.

    First to clarify, re your comment #16, if that was replying to my #15;
    you are raising a theory neither I nor the reference I gave mentioned.
    Earlier I had made reference to http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/
    and pages below that, which give a very cursory overview of the
    roles and procedures followed by the prosecutor.
    I was asking for someone to expound upon these and the two roles of the prosecutor – first as an objective investigator treating each
    side in a balanced way and gathering evidence; then deciding if there was a case to take to court; and then leading the prosecution in court acting for the victim.
    To me these two roles seem very “muddled” and unobjective. Would you mind explaining?

    The reference I made in #15 to http://www.skandinaviflorida.com
    was a translation of one of the two women making a statement
    comparable to that of BP’s CEO Tony Hayward after the
    Gulf Oil Spill. She reportedly tweeted (see my ealier ref):

    “I’m sick and tired of everything going on, does it never end? Anyways, I would like to let the theoretics know that “the other” pushing for it as much as I did.”

    I was asking for this to be put into context of the rules about
    pressing charges etc.

    (more points follow. Splitting in parts as it seems my comments were filtered out due to length)

  20. Anders,

    I am trying to post a comment in reply to you, however I suspect there is some filter on number of lines or some word I used innocuously.
    Even splitting it in half didn’t succeed. I hope the moderator can
    retreive it or advise on the filtering. I’ll try the first few lines again:

    your answers would be most welcome. Most of my questions
    already raised have been implied questions or requests for explanation in general terms.

    First to clarify, re your comment #16, if that was replying to my #15; you are raising a theory neither I nor the reference I gave mentioned.

    Earlier I had made reference to http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/
    and pages below that, which give a very cursory overview of the
    roles and procedures followed by the prosecutor. I was asking for someone to expound upon these and the two roles of
    the prosecutor – first as an objective investigator treating each
    side in a balanced way and gathering evidence; then deciding if there was a case to take to court; and then leading the prosecution in court acting for the victim. To me these two roles seem very “muddled” and unobjective. Would you mind explaining?

    (more later…)

  21. Anders

    (aha! .. continuing..)

    The reference I made in #15 to http://www.skandinaviflorida.com
    was a translation of one of the two women making a statement
    comparable to that of BP’s CEO Tony Hayward after the
    Gulf Oil Spill. She reportedly tweeted (see my ealier ref):
    “I’m sick and tired of everything going on, does it never end? Anyways, I would like to let the theoretics know that “the other” pushing for it as much as I did.”

    I was asking for this to be put into context of the rules about
    pressing charges etc.

    This leads one to suspect that she and perhaps the other woman
    might not now be pressing charges (and maybe never did)
    nor (one suspects) asked for the re-examination.
    As I understand it, the prosecutor is compelled to act, on
    behalf of the public, so to say, and also as a measure to protect
    victims of serious crimes from intimidation.
    Hence it would appear that the Victims are not in any position to
    withdraw charges (accusations?), it is entirely in the prosecutor’s
    hands. Is this so?

    What are the rules regarding evidence (changing, retracting, adding new) in general in such a situation?
    Do the Victims face any repercussions for giving false or misleading or omitting evidence?

    I see from the rules that the Accused may ask the prosecutor to obtain further evidence, but this may be declined.
    Please explain this some more? Surely there will be a
    tendency to decline such requests so as to help to win the case.
    Also – how far might this go – such as a sub-poena for phone or
    internet records?

  22. Anders

    (still continuing)

    Getting back to the extremely ironic situation that one of the women’s blogs indicated she had left Sweden, what powers does
    the prosecutor have to ensure that a Victim cooperates with the investigation, the Accused’s requests for evidence, and then if it gets
    to court, to actually turn up in person and be cross-examined?
    i.e. does the prosecutor start extraditing a Victim so as to
    press a case in the public interest?

    Anders, your illumination on all these above points would be most welcome.

    (Carl , my apologies that this is drifting away from the title topic –
    please see my request halfway in #14 for a suitable way to organise
    and contribute various pieces found on this ever bifurcating drama.)

  23. Nemo,

    Some general facts about the Swedish legal system that might provide some context:
    1) There are no jury trails in criminal cases;
    2) Prosecutors and the Prosecutor’s Office is, in the same way as legal courts are, independent from the government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerstyre);
    3) Plea bargaining does not exist.
    4) All kinds of evidence is permitted and the court values the evidence put forward on it’s merits.

    If you really want to understand the different roles courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys play in different legal systems you should also be familiar with the distinction between the adversarial system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_system) and the inquisitorial system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system).

    The Swedish system is a hybrid system with features associated with both systems. Its objective is to balance Rechtsstaat-ness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat) and cost-effectiveness. It’s not perfect but so aren’t any legal system I believe.

    To be cont.

  24. Nemo (again),

    To you first question about the role of the prosecutor:

    Considering that you have read up on the role of the prosecutor here: http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/The-role-of-the-prosecutor/, I am not going to repeat that.

    What I want to stress is that the prosecutor is under a legal obligation to prosecute if the preliminary investigation shows that a conviction is foreseeable.

    You are completely right that the role of the prosecutor is a bit “muddled” in the aspect that he or she are supposed to represent more than one interest during the preliminary investigation. This is definitely one of the weaknesses of the system. I think the system presupposes that the prosecutor is a fair and balanced civil servant (a bureaucrat some might even say!), actually in some aspects not all that different from the role of the judge. No one is really counting convictions inside the Prosecutor’s office and I don’t believe that the one with the most convictions makes a the best career, at least that is what friends of mine that work as prosecutors say. You have to remember Prosecutors are not elected in Sweden; no one is running for office!

    So, as you have correctly pointed out, this might lead to a situation where someone retract his or her allegations and the prosecutor will still prosecute. I understand that when this happens it is usually in cases where there is a close connection between the alleged perpetrator and the victim, eg. husband and wife (This would of course never happen in an adversarial legal system).

    I don’t know if any of the accusers of Assange have changed their minds, but the fact that one of them is not currently in Sweden should not be construed that way. She has the right to go on with her life, I’m sure she turns up when, or more accurately if, a court date is set.

    To be cont.

  25. Nemo,

    About the twitter thing: The prosecutor is certainly not barred from take into consideration things that has been written on the internet or in mobile phone text messages or wherever really. All that will probably be added to the preliminary investigation report if it is deemed important. If not, I’m certain Assange’s defense lawyer will bring it up.

    Yes, it’s a crime to accuse someone of a crime with the intention to get that person prosecuted. There is however no evidence that that has happened in this case.

    The prosecutor is obliged to obtain all evidence that is deemed important for the preliminary investigation. When the preliminary investigation is finished it is sent to the accused. The accused may request the prosecutor to further investigate something and the prosecutor may decline such a request on the ground that it’s not relevant to the investigation. Such a decision may be appealed to the court which adjudicate the matter.

    On the last matter. You have to remember that thus far it is only Assange who has failed to cooperate in the investigation (and for that the Brits kept him in solitary confinement in a Victorian prison for 10 days). If he is charged and there is a trial and for some reason the women cannot be located and won’t show up in court, obviously Assange cannot be convicted of any crime.

    Ok, hope I answered few of your question and that the answers were not too bad.

    /Anders

  26. (sorry -splitting again)
    Anders,

    thank you for attempting to explain, which has indeed shed some light on the situation.
    The more clear and accurate information that can be provided tothose outside Swedish legal circles the more informed the debate will be. Especially here on Carl’s site, more precise legal references to the applicable rules for the conduct of such a prosecutor’s investigation and now review, and their powers of compulsion etc. and the time limits to act would be welcome, if anyone can help.

    For the moment I’m asking about the boundaries of what might be possible in general in such cases, as there are already indications of it being pushed to the limits.

    (ctd…)

  27. Anders
    (ctd…)

    So for now just to bring together two strands of the above:
    One strand is that it can actually be so that someone makes an inquiry, which is parlayed into a suspected offence; which leads to the implied accused being arrested, lawyers appointed, an investigation carried out and then possibly the accused being charged, lawyers prepare a case, with the accused held for some lengthy time, etc.
    without the person who made the inquiry ever declaring a wish to
    press charges, nor claiming serious harm done, and then there is
    no compulsion for that person to appear in court, nor a trial in absentia, nor them risking a penalty, as they did not even make an accusation, and hence at the end of all this no case is heard.

    The other strand is that the prosecutor is obliged to objectively
    judge that a case is likely to lead to a conviction (not simply
    that there is a case to answer for).
    So does not the second strand then oblige the prosecutor to objectively determine and obtain assurances that the ‘victim’ actually intends to appear, otherwise there is no prospect of a conviction regardless the details of the case?
    Or to put it the other way, should such a situation transpire and
    lead to a no-show, then has not the prosecutor failed in their obligations?

    Overall this system appears very asymmetrical and any notion of
    fairness based on assumptions of social behaviour, rather than
    checks and balances.

    more another time …

  28. Request for Review and No-trial Statistics.

    Where can one find reports giving a breakdown of statistics on
    the Swedish prosecution service?

    They are obviously being collected, since they are given here [1] as
    an overall figure regarding how many prosecutions are reviewed
    and changed. It would be more informative to know how many
    are rejected and how many are reinstated after review,
    and categrorised by type and seriousness of offence etc. etc.

    It would also be very interesting to know the statistics on how many
    cases do not get heard in court due to the non-appearance of the victim, (due to the prosecutor’s obligation to investigate and charge regardless), again with a breakdown in categories.

    Can someone give some URL’s please?

    [1]
    http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/The-role-of-the-prosecutor/Decision-to-prosecu
    te/Retrial/

    ” Few rulings are changed
    During 2008, over 2 000 rulings by prosecutors were reviewed at the four prosecution development centres. This is less than 1 per cent of all the prosecutor rulings that were made during the course of the year. Prosecutor rulings were revised in 220 cases (approximately 11 per cent of the reviews conducted and some 0.04 per cent of all prosecutor rulings). “

  29. Nemo,

    I’ll start with this one:

    “It would also be very interesting to know the statistics on how many cases do not get heard in court due to the non-appearance of the victim, (due to the prosecutor’s obligation to investigate and charge regardless), again with a breakdown in categories.”

    In the murder category: 0% of all murder cases in Sweden are not heard in court due to the fact that the victim failed to show up in said court.

    Sorry, I just had to…

    But, honestly your perception of the Swedish justice system seems to be that it is a very corrupt system where the officials abuse their powers on a regular basis. That perception is not shared by everyone apparently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Corruption_Perceptions_Index

    There are checks and balances in the system. For instance would a prosecutor committing a criminal offense if acting as in your first example in post 31 (a prosecutor is in no position parlay anything). And it is the court that decides on detention. Here are the criteria:

    “Chapter 24
    DETENTION AND ARREST
    Section 1
    Any person suspected on probable cause of an offence punishable
    by imprisonment for a term of one year or more may be placed in
    detention if, in view of the nature of the offence, the suspect’s
    circumstances, or any other factor, there is a reasonable risk that
    the person will:
    1. flee or otherwise evade legal proceedings or punishment;
    2. impede the inquiry into the matter at issue by removing evidence
    or in another way; or
    3. continue his criminal activity.

    If a penalty less severe than imprisonment for two years is not
    prescribed for the offence, the suspect shall be detained unless it is
    clear that detention is unwarranted.

    Detention may only occur if the reason for detention outweighs the
    intrusion or other detriment to the suspect or some other opposing
    interest.

    If it can be assumed that the suspect will only be sentenced to a fine
    he must not be detained.”
    (http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/15/40/472970fc.pdf).

    The detention decision is then reviewed by the court every other week.

    With regards to evidence. It is not a prerequisite for a conviction that the victim shows up in court (as the murder example illustrates). But even if the victim is alive it is not obligatory. If there are other kinds of evidence, eg. witnesses, DNA etc. and the prosecutor can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the suspect committed the crime, there will be a conviction.
    However in a “he-said-she-said” rape case with no other kinds of evidence available, the victim needs to come to the court and tell what happened, otherwise there would be no evidence at all.

    Ok, I’ll stop there.

    /Anders

  30. Anders,

    take it easy …

    I regret using the word ‘parlayed’ in haste, perhaps for theatrical effect, as I see from the dictionary that it has connotations which I most certainly did not intend.
    Even looking at a thesaurus provides only words like “turns into”, “elevated”, or “upgraded”.
    What word or two do you suggest to describe very briefly the concept where by completely proper means it occurs that a request for advice by an individual made to an officer of the law becomes an
    official suspicion that an offence has occured which must be investigated first by the officer? (and then goes to the prosecutor
    for investigation).

    I was simply trying to paraphrase a long chain of steps so I could
    bring together two concepts in a logical manner to engage in civil intellectual discussion about how the obligations and potential
    logical contradictions in outcomes are resolved or balanced.
    Perhaps you find my way of thinking too theoretical; I really am
    interested to understand in an abstract form the whole framework
    in which the situation currently of world interest is playing out,
    and in particular to see what the possible limits are.

    I’m perplexed at how you have “parlayed” 🙂 my intellectual
    curiosity about what may be a 1 in 10,000 or even 1 in 1 million
    ocurrence into unfounded assertions about my perception of
    what the Swedish Justice system is like in general.

    Please try to re-read my questions in a neutral tone.
    I am sincerely interested in locating the statistics and other
    objective information. Shall I explain all my reasons to
    ask for them…?

    I was pleasantly surprised to find the pdf you referenced is
    in English. Is there a good starting page to find such documents;
    as I did not see them at http://www.aklagare.se ?

    alles ok?

Webmentions

  • WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange granted bail: live updates | December 23, 2010

    […] 8.45am: The legal blogger Carl Gardner deserves credit for revealing that it was the British authorities, and not the Swedes, …. […]

  • news.sux.org.uk » Blog Archive » WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange granted bail: live updates December 23, 2010

    […] 8.45am: The legal blogger Carl Gardner deserves credit for revealing that it was the British authorities, and not the Swedes, …. […]

  • WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange granted bail: live updates - Yachydda is Politically Arguementative and Topical - yachydda.co.uk December 23, 2010

    […] 8.45am: The legal blogger Carl Gardner deserves credit for revealing that it was the British authorities, and not the Swedes, …. […]

  • Julian Assange bail decision upheld | Race to the Dail December 23, 2010

    […] The CPS said its action was in accordance with usual practice for extradition cases and it believed Assange was a flight risk. Assange, 39, is fighting extradition to Sweden where he is wanted for questioning following allegations of sexual assault from two separate women. […]

  • Assange due in court for bail challenge | MyBlogWorld December 23, 2010

    […] 8.45am: The legal blogger Carl Gardner deserves credit for revealing that it was the British authorities, and not the Swedes, …. […]

  • WikiLeaks latest and bail appeal against Julian Assange: live updates – Marcus Evans Offices December 23, 2010

    […] 8.45am: The legal blogger Carl Gardner deserves credit for revealing that it was the British authorities, and not the Swedes, …. […]

  • Julian Assange supporters raise $360,000 for NYT ad | Race to the Dail December 23, 2010

    […] it seemed Swedish authorities had lodged an appeal against the decision, but Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service has confirmed to blogger Carl Gardner that it took the decision to appeal bail as it believes Assange is a flight […]

  • Julian Assange supporters raise $360,000 for NYT ad | Race to the Dail December 23, 2010

    […] it seemed Swedish authorities had lodged an appeal against the decision, but Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service has confirmed to blogger Carl Gardner that it took the decision to appeal bail as it believes Assange is a flight […]

  • WikiLeaks lates and bail appeal against Julian Assange: live updates | Rubytall News December 23, 2010

    […] 8.45am: The legal blogger Carl Gardner deserves credit for revealing that it was the British authorities, and not the Swedes, …. […]

  • WikiLeaks lates and bail appeal against Julian Assange: live updates - This is a website devoted to Breaking News - dorissays.com December 23, 2010

    […] 8.45am: The legal blogger Carl Gardner deserves credit for revealing that it was the British authorities, and not the Swedes, …. […]

  • Assange Granted Bail December 23, 2010

    […] UPDATE 2: *There is no presumption in favour of bail in a rape case.  I’m not sure that that applies in this case given it’s technically an extradition case.  Furthermore the CPS took the decision to appeal the granting of bail without consulting Sweden. […]