Assange lawyer claims Sweden acted improperly in probe
Assange was in a London courtroom for a second day yesterday, fighting extradition to Sweden where he is wanted for questioning over claims of rape and sexual molestation made by two Swedish women. His lawyers argue global publicity surrounding the case and the Swedish custom of hearing rape cases behind closed doors mean he would not get a fair trial.
Assange has denied the rape and sexual molestation claims and his lawyers say prosecutors have rebuffed his offer to be questioned from London about the allegations.
Assange’s Swedish lawyer, Bjorn Hurtig, told the court yesterday an initial prosecutor “acted against the laws of confidentiality, telling one of our tabloid newspapers that Julian was suspected of rape.” He said prosecutors and police had also leaked details of the case to media.
Geoffrey Robertson, one of Assange’s British lawyers, told the extradition hearing on Monday that Sweden’s closed-door rape hearings would be “a flagrant denial of justice”.
Sven-Erik Alhem, a former chief prosecutor in Sweden appearing as a defence witness, said Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny “should have made sure Assange was able to give his version of events in detail” before issuing an international arrest warrant. Alhem also said it was “extraordinary” a prosecutor had leaked Assange’s name to the media.
But the British lawyer representing Sweden, Clare Montgomery, said Ny had issued an arrest warrant for Assange only after making repeated unsuccessful attempts to arrange an interview with him.
In a court document from Ny read aloud by Montgomery, Ny said “it must have been crystal clear to Julian Assange ... that we were extremely anxious to interview him.”
Assange is accused of sexually assaulting one woman and raping another by having sex with her while she was asleep during a week-long visit to Stockholm in August. In Swedish law, sex with a person who is asleep can constitute rape.
The defence says Assange had consensual sex with his two accusers and has not committed any crime. In a written statement to court, Hurtig said “the case is one of the weakest I have ever seen in my professional career.”
Assange’s wide-ranging arguments against extradition range from criticism of Ny to claims that he could eventually be extradited from Sweden to the United States, and even sent to the detention centre at the US Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
However, Alhem appeared to undermine the defence claim that Assange could be extradited when he said it was not possible for Assange to be sent from Sweden to the US on the current European Arrest Warrant..
Judge Howard Riddle could take several weeks to consider his ruling — which can be appealed by either side.
