Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Homunculiheaded 5045 days ago
But according to Swedish law Assange cannot be charged until after this second round of questioning. If you search this document [0] for 'charge' you'll see that Swedish law is very different from US and UK laws where being formally charged happens very early in the legal process. From what I've gather in Swedish law once you are charge formally you go very quickly to court.

0. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgment...

1 comments

This is pretty much irrelevant. They have two alternatives:

- They can interview him where he is now, and move things forward at least a little bit. - They can wait - possibly forever - to interview him, and not get justice for anyone.

What changes if they interview him now?

They claim there are legal issues with it, but this would not be the first time someone had been questioned on foreign soil, and it would not be the first time someone has been charged in absentia if they were to go down that route.

He won't magically gain superpowers and fly away from the Ecuadorian embassy if they charge him before they have him in custody. All that realistically changes is that they have to publicly make a decision whether to file charges or not.

So the question the is why is that a problem? The cynic in me tells me that the most likely reason is that they don't believe they have a strong case, and that his dogged insistence on not going to Sweden suits the prosecutor perfectly.

It is relevant, because people are implying the case is much much less further along than it actually is. It is the opinion of the English courts (ยง153 of http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html) that "there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged". So the case is far enough along that he would be charged (were this England).
He would be charged were this England and the Swedish prosecutors representation is backed up by evidence. In fact, he can be charged in absentia in Sweden if those representations can be backed up by evidence. Yet they keep stalling with their nonsense about not being able to interview him abroad. Which does raise the question of whether they do have sufficient evidence to get him charge in Sweden at all.