Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts The Media United Kingdom Your Rights Online

Assange Loses Latest Round In Extradition Fight 296

Posted by timothy
from the at-least-the-travel's-free dept.
Richard_at_work writes "After losing his appeal to the UK Supreme Court a couple of weeks ago, Assange's lawyer was given leave to seek a reopening of the case on particular grounds — the UK Supreme Court has now rejected those grounds and upheld its earlier ruling that Assange should be extradited, which could happen in the next few days."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Assange Loses Latest Round In Extradition Fight

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Guilty? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Rei (128717) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @11:42AM (#40323287) Homepage

    That, of course, is not the actual charge. The actual charge itself being just one of four.

    The meme "he's being charged for having sex without a condom" is a deliberate attempt to skew the actual situation. I'm not saying he's guilty of anything serious. I'm not saying he's not. But I'm just pointing out, the *actual* charges are that 1) the woman *only consented* to sex with a condom but he only pretended to use one, violating the terms of her consent; 2) that he started having sex with another woman in her sleep; 3) that he held one woman down in a sexual manner against her consent; and 4) that he rubbed his penis against one girl without her consent.

    Again, it's not "stranger in the bushes, knife up to the throat rape" that's being charged, but the charges are not "he had sex without a condom".

  • Re:Buggars! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice@@@gmail...com> on Thursday June 14, 2012 @11:59AM (#40323453)

    The judges themselves said they were unlawful under UK law:

    Rejecting the Assange legal team’s attempt to portray his alleged actions as “disrespectful” or “disturbing” but not criminal, the judges declared (PDF) that the behavior described in each of the charges was criminal under the laws of England and Wales:

    The first complaint described a situation in which Assange held down the arms of the woman known as AA, preventing her from reaching a condom as he attempted to pry her legs open with his own legs in order to penetrate her vaginally. AA’s subsequent consent to intercourse after he had agreed to put on a condom, they found, did not render Assange’s alleged initial use of force against her lawful.

    With regard to the second complaint, Assange’s lawyers contended that it is not illegal under English law to penetrate a partner without a condom in circumstances in which she has only consented to sex if a condom is used. The court ruled that such deception would be a criminal act in England, given that AA’s complaint alleged that Assange intentionally sabotaged the condom he was using while they were having intercourse.

    In the third complaint, AA alleged that Assange rubbed his erect naked penis against her body while they were sharing a bed under non-sexual circumstances. The judges ruled that AA’s consent to sleep in the same bed as Assange “was not a consent to him removing his clothes from the lower part of his body and deliberately pressing that part and his erect penis against her.”

    Finally, in the case of the fourth complaint, the judges rejected the Assange lawyers’ contention that the behavior described would not constitute rape under English law. Under that law, they found, the behavior alleged constituted rape in two separate ways: First, that Assange is said to have penetrated SW without a condom when she had only consented to intercourse if a condom was present, and second that he penetrated her while she slept. “It is difficult to see,” they said, “how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep,” and “there is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.”

    From http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/02/british-judges-reject-assanges-rape-defense/ [studentactivism.net]

    Judgement mentioned in the article, direct from the UK Judiciary website - http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf [judiciary.gov.uk]

  • by crazyjj (2598719) * on Thursday June 14, 2012 @12:12PM (#40323575)

    Here you go [huffingtonpost.com]

  • Re:Guilty? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice@@@gmail...com> on Thursday June 14, 2012 @12:15PM (#40323605)

    British Judges have already said in their ruling that all four complaints would be unlawful under English law.

    http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-judgment.pdf [judiciary.gov.uk]

    Rejecting the Assange legal team’s attempt to portray his alleged actions as “disrespectful” or “disturbing” but not criminal, the judges declared (PDF) that the behavior described in each of the charges was criminal under the laws of England and Wales:

    The first complaint described a situation in which Assange held down the arms of the woman known as AA, preventing her from reaching a condom as he attempted to pry her legs open with his own legs in order to penetrate her vaginally. AA’s subsequent consent to intercourse after he had agreed to put on a condom, they found, did not render Assange’s alleged initial use of force against her lawful.

    With regard to the second complaint, Assange’s lawyers contended that it is not illegal under English law to penetrate a partner without a condom in circumstances in which she has only consented to sex if a condom is used. The court ruled that such deception would be a criminal act in England, given that AA’s complaint alleged that Assange intentionally sabotaged the condom he was using while they were having intercourse.

    In the third complaint, AA alleged that Assange rubbed his erect naked penis against her body while they were sharing a bed under non-sexual circumstances. The judges ruled that AA’s consent to sleep in the same bed as Assange “was not a consent to him removing his clothes from the lower part of his body and deliberately pressing that part and his erect penis against her.”

    Finally, in the case of the fourth complaint, the judges rejected the Assange lawyers’ contention that the behavior described would not constitute rape under English law. Under that law, they found, the behavior alleged constituted rape in two separate ways: First, that Assange is said to have penetrated SW without a condom when she had only consented to intercourse if a condom was present, and second that he penetrated her while she slept. “It is difficult to see,” they said, “how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half sleep,” and “there is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.”

    One important note as to that last charge. Assange’s attorneys contended that SW’s consent to the continuation of unprotected intercourse after she awoke to find Assange penetrating her rendered the entire encounter consensual. The judges rejected that argument, declaring that “the fact that she allowed it to continue once she was aware of what was happening cannot go to his state of mind or its reasonableness when he initially penetrated her.” It was his alleged initial penetration, they ruled, that constituted rape, and consent to non-consensual intercourse cannot be obtained retroactively.

    http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/02/british-judges-reject-assanges-rape-defense/ [studentactivism.net]

  • Oh, bullshit, AC. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Uberbah (647458) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @12:47PM (#40323957)

    And... cue the ignorant douchebags shouting about how this is just a ploy for the US gov't to get its hands on him.

    Cue the authoritarian douchebags who are hoping that no one will notice that the guy hasn't even been charged yet.

    Because it's only FUD if you disagree with it.

    Do you own a mirror?

  • Re:Buggars! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Joce640k (829181) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @01:19PM (#40324493) Homepage

    So does the UK...

    Not like Sweden. Sweden has an arrangement with the USA which allows them to temporarily transfer somebody in their custody to the USA for questioning on charges not related to crimes committed in Sweden. This "temporary surrender" bypasses the normal legal processes needed for extradition.

    Cites: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html [justice4assange.com]

    Bottom line: The easiest way for the USA needs to get their hands on him is to get him into Sweden. After that he can vanish. And it's all perfectly legal.

  • Re:Buggars! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Joce640k (829181) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @01:22PM (#40324577) Homepage

    Impossible, sweden cannot extradite him without UK consent. (illegal to extradite after you been extradited from different country in european law)

    Nope. Sweden has a special treaty with the USA which allows them to hand him over with almost no legal process: http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html [justice4assange.com]

  • Re:Oh, bullshit, AC. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Uberbah (647458) on Thursday June 14, 2012 @02:41PM (#40326213)

    You realize they questioned Assange at the time and released him, right? You realize he asked for permission to leave the country and it was granted, right? You realize that it's extremely rare for people to be deported without even being charged, right?

    Right?

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.

Working...