WikiLeaks Julian Assange finally nicked by the Met Police Watch

Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#61
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#61
(Original post by Good bloke)
He has served no time (until now). He has had a holiday in Ecuador.
I was doing a lil jokey joke xx
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#62
Report 1 week ago
#62
(Original post by AJ126)
Well one woman described it as rape because he started having sex but then she appears to have continued willingly? Seems like an odd form of rape.The other seems to mainly dispute that he should have used a condom but otherwise had sex willingly.Again hardly the classical interpretation of rape.Indeed it's stretching the term to the point where it loses meaning if you call it rape.He even says in England it wouldn't be called rape.

I suspect this will be like the alleged Russian hacking in the US election.No evidence was provided.The Mueller report found no evidence of collusion with Russians.Yet everybody accepted it as fact.Nope there is scant evidence for it.Tbh I doubt he would have stayed in the embassy for 7 years if it was just the Swedes he was worried about.Hes not worried about them.Hes worried he'll get extradited to the USA and spend the next 500 years in an American jail.As he should be.
What constitutes rape in the U.K. has no relevance.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#63
Report 1 week ago
#63
I might be wrong here. But wasn’t he originally arrested in the U.K for the Swedish charge, for which he then skipped bail? As a result we’ve arrested him for that.

Also, from what I can hear he treated the Ecuadorian embassy like ****. Takes a real prick of a person to do that to a country that has allowed you to avoid justice for so long.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#64
Report 1 week ago
#64
(Original post by Good bloke)
He has served no time (until now). He has had a holiday in Ecuador.
Group 4 have lost the contract to operate Wormwood Scrubs to a consortium consisting of the Cats Protection League and the Ecuadorian Government. 👿
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by nulli tertius; 1 week ago
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#65
Report 1 week ago
#65
(Original post by Andrew97)
What constitutes rape in the U.K. has no relevance.
That is not in fact true. One of the requirements for extradition is double criminality; that the conduct is both an offence in the UK and in the country seeking the suspect’s return.

Many people fighting extradition falsely claim in the the media that their conduct wouldn’t amount to a crime in this country. Few make that argument to an English court.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
1
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#66
Report 1 week ago
#66
It will be a lot easier for the UK if we extradite to Sweden or deport to Australia. One of the cardinal principles of extradition is “specialty” that the country to which we extradite won’t try him for other offences without giving him a chance to leave and won’t extradite him to a third country without the permission of the UK Government.

The UK Government will trust the Swedish authorities to comply with this. They may not have the same confidence in the Trump Admimistration.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
1
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 17
#67
Report 1 week ago
#67
(Original post by nulli tertius)
It will be a lot easier for the UK if we extradite to Sweden or deport to Australia. One of the cardinal principles of extradition is “specialty” that the country to which we extradite won’t try him for other offences without giving him a chance to leave and won’t extradite him to a third country without the permission of the UK Government.

The UK Government will trust the Swedish authorities to comply with this. They may not have the same confidence in the Trump Admimistration.
But if HMG extradites him to the US it wouldn’t be for the rape accusation(s), it would be for what the US have now indicted him for - so how would the other offences issue be relevant?
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#68
Report 1 week ago
#68
(Original post by Palmyra)
But if HMG extradites him to the US it wouldn’t be for the rape accusation(s), it would be for what the US have now indicted him for - so how would the other offences issue be relevant?
There is currently a single indictment in the USA for one offence carrying a maximum 5 years sentence. However, there is talk of him being prosecuted there for more serious offences in the US. That isn’t a problem if he is extradited for those offences as well, but there is a real problem if he isn’t. There are various reasons why he might not be extradited for everything.

The first is that the US authorities may simply not ask and try to add to the indictment later. Next, the other offences may be capital offences, for which we will not extradite without an undertaking not to apply for the death penalty. Some offences may be state law offences for which the US Government is not responsible. Some offences may not be extradition offences. Some charges may breach the rules of specialty (see my earlier post).

We really wouldn’t want to fall out with the US Government over a disagreeable non-UK citizen, but that sometimes happens if a country seeking extradition won’t play by the rules.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by nulli tertius; 1 week ago
0
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 17
#69
Report 1 week ago
#69
(Original post by nulli tertius)
There is currently a single indictment in the USA for one offence carrying a maximum 5 years sentence. However, there is talk of him being prosecuted there for more serious offences in the US. That isn’t a problem if he is extradited for those offences as well, but there is a real problem if he isn’t. There are various reasons why he might not be extradited for everything.

The first is that the US authorities may simply not ask and try to add to the indictment later. Next, the other offences may be capital offences, for which we will not extradite without an undertaking not to apply for the death penalty. Some offences may be state law offences for which the US Government is not responsible. Some offences may not be extradition offences. Some charges may breach the rules of specialty (see my earlier post).

We really wouldn’t want to fall out with the US Government over a disagreeable non-UK citizen, but that sometimes happens if a country seeking extradition won’t play by the rules.
Can we make the extradition contingent on him only facing charges for which he is currently indicted for (no enforcement mechanism obviously but political pressures not to abrogate such an understanding should suffice)? Possibly give the US more time to decide if they wish to add further indictments before extraditing him also (to be receptive to their concerns in good faith whilst adhering to your specialty principle)
Last edited by Palmyra; 1 week ago
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#70
Report 1 week ago
#70
(Original post by Palmyra)
Can we make the extradition contingent on him only facing charges for which he is currently indicted for (no enforcement mechanism obviously but political pressures not to abrogate such an understanding should suffice)? Possibly give the US more time to decide if they wish to add further indictments before extraditing him also (to be receptive to their concerns in good faith whilst adhering to your specialty principle)
We can and we do, and there wouldn’t have been a problem with any other 20th or 21st century US Administration.

The problems are do we believe that the present US Attorney General or Secretary of State have the authority to bind the US Administration? Do we accept Trump’s word on a politically charged matter such as this?

These are places the UK Government really doesn’t want to go.

Theresa May will remember the problems over the extradition of Abu Qatada to Jordan where the UK courts wouldn’t accept the word of one of our closest friends in the Middle East. Activists spent years traducing the Jordanian legal system only for the Jordanians to eventually find him Not Guilty!
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#71
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#71
(Original post by nulli tertius)
That is not in fact true. One of the requirements for extradition is double criminality; that the conduct is both an offence in the UK and in the country seeking the suspect’s return.

Many people fighting extradition falsely claim in the the media that their conduct wouldn’t amount to a crime in this country. Few make that argument to an English court.
I was going to say this, but in fact double criminality does not apply for EAW listed offences. One of which is rape.

I cannot exactly recall why this did not occur in the Assange litigation.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#72
Report 1 week ago
#72
(Original post by Notoriety)
I was going to say this, but in fact double criminality does not apply for EAW listed offences. One of which is rape.

I cannot exactly recall why this did not occur in the Assange litigation.
The previous request was for sexual assault. The rape case only came to light I think after he had scarpered.

You are right about the double criminality but I suspect it is more about need for proof of double criminality than anything else. I would be very surprised in anyone was ever handed over where the suspect truly hasn't committed an offence in the sending jurisdiction.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#73
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#73
(Original post by nulli tertius)
The previous request was for sexual assault. The rape case only came to light I think after he had scarpered.

You are right about the double criminality but I suspect it is more about need for proof of double criminality than anything else. I would be very surprised in anyone was ever handed over where the suspect truly hasn't committed an offence in the sending jurisdiction.
There are some drug trafficking cases where admittedly the person would not have been liable under English law but nevertheless surrendered under an EAW request. The reasons why are very technical -- the unprocessed base chemical was illegal in the requesting state but not here, but the processed or even slightly more processed substance would be illegal here.

The fact that this technical case is mainly cited in the academic literature (rather than an easier to understand one) suggests that it's not a common problem.

The ground for challenging a surrender is where the propriety of the investigation conducted is questioned. This has only happened once, as far as I recall.
Last edited by Notoriety; 1 week ago
0
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#74
Report 1 week ago
#74
https://youtu.be/siHgvx3t9V8

A very worthwhile assesment of what's going on by John Pilger.
Last edited by Just my opinion; 1 week ago
0
reply
NJA
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#75
Report 1 week ago
#75
Plenty of Julian Assange memorabilia littering the pavements of Belgravia I see.
Grab yourself a bit!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (311)
37.61%
No - but I will (64)
7.74%
No - I don't want to (62)
7.5%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (390)
47.16%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise