Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

I am not an expert on the Swedish legal system, but I do play one on the internetz

links to various sections of the Swedish prosecutor's website

front page, in Swedish

front page, in sort-of English, via Google translation
- you can [sorta] see that the center column is basically press releases

front page of the English-translation section [translation apparently provided by real translators, not Google or Babelfish or other machine translation]

--- note the rh sidebar labeled Background Information, with links to excerpts from the Swedsh Penal Code and to a brief explanation of prosecutorial review

--- from the lh sidebar, you can navigate through a number of pages explaining The role of the prosecutor and for now, I'll leave it up to y'all to follow and read them yourselves.

--------------------------------------------------------

other links

the dkos diary that lambert found earlier: Dear Michael Moore
- a really good read

brief descriptions of how the swedish justice system works
- here
- here
- and here [PDF]

the Swedish Ministry of Justice
- website front page
- interesting tidbit: aliens who are expelled from Sweden because they've been convicted of a criminal offence can still apply for a residency permit under some circumstances

--------------------------------------------------------

best explanation I've seen so far of why Assange has to return to Sweden to face charges, rather than use videolinking or meeting in an embassy somewhere [thanks, affinis!]:

Lead Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny says the latest arrest warrant was issued because Swedish law prohibits formal legal interviews over a telephone or video link. "We had a case in the southern Swedish city of Helsingborg where a suspect was heard via telephone, and it was heavily criticized by the Ombudsmen for Justice as not being in accordance with existing law," she tells TIME. "The Swedish embassy in London is not Swedish territory in the sense that we can hold interrogations there without formal approval of British authorities."

Asked why she did not request that Assange voluntarily submit to questioning rather than face arrest, Ny replies, "I am not at liberty to disclose all the details regarding different actions we took in order to hold a hearing with him. But since we are unaware of his whereabouts, and we are by law prohibited from conducting hearings via telephone or video link, this was the only legal action left."

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by wlarip on

Extradition is a risky (particularly from the liabilities of belonging to the EU) gambit if the prosecution ends up having to say:

'Excuse me. I made a mistake.'

"Decision to prosecute

Once the preliminary investigations have been completed, it is time for the prosecutor to decide whether or not to prosecute.

If the prosecutor, on objective grounds, judges that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the suspect has committed an offence, he/she is obliged to prosecute. A number of considerations must be taken into account before this decision is made.

If a prosecution is initiated, it is the task of the prosecutor to prove to the court that a crime has been committed.

No prosecution

If there is insufficient evidence to prove that an offence has been committed, the suspect cannot be prosecuted. It could, for example, be because the suspect denies committing the offence or that there are no witnesses or forensic evidence linking the suspect to the crime. Sometimes it becomes apparent during the course of the preliminary investigation that it is not possible to prove that a crime has been committed. Under these circumstances the prosecutor decides to discontinue the preliminary investigation.

A decision like this has the same significance as a decision to drop the charges against a suspect.

In the case of both decisions it means that the preliminary investigations can be resumed if new information is received concerning the crime.

The victim of the crime, the injured party, is always informed of the decision reached by the prosecutor."

Submitted by lambert on

Guardian:

Has Assange been charged with an offence, or are these just accusations?
Assange has not formally been charged with any crime. His lawyers insist the warrant against him is merely for questioning on the accusations made by the two women, Miss A and Miss W.

But Gemma Lindfield, for the Crown Prosecution Service, said in court that the European Arrest Warrant "quite clearly states [Assange] is wanted for prosecution".

Mr Justice Ouseley, the head of the administrative court who rejected the appeal against Assange's bail, acknowledged the dispute in his judgment: "There is a debate, which may yet be had elsewhere, over whether the warrant is a warrant for questioning or a warrant for trial." He was proceeding, he said, on the basis that it was an extradition warrant for trial. A charge by the requesting country is a prerequisite for a valid EAW

So, the Guardian says no formal charges. One set of lawyers says "questioning", the other says "prosecution," and the judge says "prosecution." Ordinarily dispositive -- we're dealing, I guess, with the Swedish, UK, and EU legal systems, none of which I know anything about -- but if so, why is the Guardian, which seems to be reasonably trustworthy, not treating the matter as closed? (Could it be that the Judge needs to fit Swedish law into a UK framework????? Because the Guardian doesn't give the Judge's reasoning.) I tried to find the text of the EAW, but the Google hit list is totally polluted by right wingers yammering about infringements of British sovreignty. Lordy.