Julian Assange will demand on Friday that Sweden and the UK lift any threat of arrest to allow him to walk free from Ecuador’s embassy in London, after a United Nations panel found that his three-and-a-half year confinement at the embassy in London amounted to “arbitrary detention”.
As the police have said, if he walks out he will be arrested. And not for anything to do with Sweden either. He skipped bail. When found and available he will be arrested.
I found the Murphalunar Maths interesting in that transcript, even after the “I’m a Professor dontchaknow” introduction.
‘FTSE 100 companies have joined the Fair Tax Mark’ comprsing SSE.
He still doesn’t get the difference between “one” and “plural”.
“The findings of the UN working group on arbitrary detention (UNWGAD) are not legally binding…”
That’s all, folks!
“Assange issued a statement via Twitter early on Thursday saying that if the five-person panel found against him, he would voluntarily walk out of the embassy and offer himself for immediate arrest, “as there is no meaningful prospect of further appeal”.
“However, should I prevail and the state parties be found to have acted unlawfully, I expect the immediate return of my passport and the termination of further attempts to arrest me.””
Let’s meet him half way. Place his passport on the pavement outside the embassy. Then just wait.
England works on English law?
Up to a point. If the ECJ made a ruling rather than some quanglet no one has heard of, it would be a rather different story.
Still, Assange may unknowingly be doing his little bit for the brexit campaign.
The Meissen Bison – “Up to a point. If the ECJ made a ruling rather than some quanglet no one has heard of, it would be a rather different story.”
The next step will be to argue that Britain is bound under international humanitarian law to listen to that quanglet. And then to take it to the ECJ to get their opinion.
I think they will side with Assange.
SMFS: I think they will side with Assange
Of course. Anything to subvert the nation state and have it subsumed into some supranational gloop.
Great. We now know the name of another UN quango we can stop funding 🙂
PS Clearly Julian knew what the ruling was in advance. Could this be grounds for mistrial in a normal court?
The WGAD in their ruling claim that the ECJ is bound to take their findings into consideration. But they’re part of the UNHCR which is currently chaired by Saudi Arabia. They’re beyond parody.
So the Ecuadorian bastards have held him for three-and-a-half years. Wait . . . what?
I know there is a lot more depth to the issue but doesn’t the UN panel calling running from the law “arbitrary detention” mean that any criminal on the run is arbitrarily detained? Following the logical consequences if I were to rob a ban for $1M all I have to do is to wait for the statute of limitations to run out in a place authorities can’t get to me. After the SoL is up I can there come back and sue the government for imprisoning me(well I wasn’t allowed to go anywhere I wanted so I must be imprisoned) without following due process.
If Assange’s mistake, like Snowden’s in Russia, was poor planning. He could be serving his time for skipping bail on a Cuban beach if he had some foresight. I really need to turn to a life of crime. The retirement package for being mostly successful just became really lucrative. Even if I do slip up and get caught the payment from my time on the run should be fairly hefty.
Anyone know what the likely Swedish jail term is for the rape he’s accused of?
ie, even if found guilty and jailed at the time he did a runner, would he be walking free by now?
Liberal Yank – “He could be serving his time for skipping bail on a Cuban beach if he had some foresight. I really need to turn to a life of crime.”
You could become a Fugitive Consultant. Not even sure it would be illegal. The people who made money out of the Gold Rush were the ones selling the shovels. Don’t commit the crime. That is dangerous and people shoot at you. Sell the idiots who do a service they need.
…they’re part of the UNHCR which is currently chaired by Saudi Arabia
No it isn’t. The current President (since last month) of the UNHRC is Korean, and his predecessor was German. The UNHRC High Commissioner is Jordanian.
The UNHRC has among its bodies a five-member “Consultative Group” composed of five ambassadors, one chosen by each region, who serve for one year only. It is responsible for interviewing shortlisted expert candidates for various roles, then making recommendations to the UNHRC President. During 2015, the Asia-Pacific member was Saudi Arabian. The group is responsible for choosing its own chair from among its members: for the last six months of 2015 it chose the Saudi. As of last month it has a whole different membership.
I don’t I approve of this. But, facts.
The sentence for rape according to the Swedish Penal Code is two to six years. Or two to four years if the crime is considered to be “less aggravated”. (Or up to ten years for “gross rape”).
That is a much better use of my time SMFS. Once again the government is creating jobs. I can’t wait to see the political spin.
Liberal Yank – “That is a much better use of my time SMFS. Once again the government is creating jobs. I can’t wait to see the political spin.”
Better yet when Quentin Tarantino makes a film of your life, Harvey Keitel will play you. With some asinine name unfortunately.
It’s not the Swedish charge he is scared of; it’s the extradition to the U.S. that might follow. Which could have a much longer sentence than merely violating a woman.
The onwards extradition claim is a smokescreen. First, it’s hard to see on what charge the US could extradite Assange from either Sweden or the UK. Second, it’s impossible to see why it would be easier to extradite him from Sweden than from the UK, where we have a generous extradition treaty with the USA. Third, under the European Arrest Warrant framework, Sweden would not be able to extradite Assange to the USA without the UK’s agreement.
“Second, it’s impossible to see why it would be easier to extradite him from Sweden than from the UK, where we have a generous extradition treaty with the USA”
Yes, that was the bit that always confused me as well.