Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

L'Espresso says UK Blocked Sweden from Questioning Assange

posted by n1 on Tuesday October 20 2015, @04:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the wouldn't-do-that-if-i-were-you dept.

Yog-Yogguth writes:

Italian newspaper L'Espresso requested documents from the UK and Sweden using Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) mechanisms and while they didn't get anything from the UK Crown Prosecution Service they did get 226 pages from the Swedish Prosecution Authority, enough to cast some light on what went on behind the scene.

From their English version (original in Italian):

The files obtained under Foia reveal that from the very beginning, the "Crown Prosecution Service" in London advised the Swedish prosecutors against the investigative strategy that could have led to a quick closure of the preliminary investigation: questioning Assange in London – as he has requested on many occasions - rather than extraditing him to Stockholm, as the Swedish prosecutors have always tried to do.

In January 2011, not even two months after Julian Assange had been arrested in London, a lawyer at the Crown Prosecution Service, Mr. Paul Close, strongly advised the Swedish magistrates against questioning the WikiLeaks' founder in London.

Much more in the L'Espresso news articles including some of the documents. There's also coverage (so far) by 9news in australia ("Details in new UK documents stun Assange") and RT out of Russia ("UK resisted Swedish efforts to interview Julian Assange").

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
L'Espresso says UK Blocked Sweden from Questioning Assange | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 9 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday October 20 2015, @04:28AM

    by frojack (1554) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @04:28AM (#252170) Journal

    I guess we are being lead to believe that the US leaned on the British to lean on the Swedes.
    I suppose the Swedes might be harder to lean on than the Brits. Lots less leverage.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 20 2015, @08:07AM

    by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Tuesday October 20 2015, @08:07AM (#252207) Homepage
    The UK was the US' lapdog even back in Thatcher days. And "New Labour" was nothing more than Old Conservative. And the Conservatives are what they've always been (except with some of the socially blinkered elements filtered out thanks to UKIP).

    What I don't understand is how the UK could actually have any influence.

    Sweden to Ecuador: "mind if we conduct this procedure in your embassy?"
    Ecuador to Sweden: "Sure"
    UK to Sweden: "Oh, no you don't!"
    Sweden to UK: "Directive 2004/38/EC, motherfucka"
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by zocalo on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:14AM

      by zocalo (302) on Tuesday October 20 2015, @09:14AM (#252217)

      Ecuador to Sweden: "Sure"

      Actually, if you read the documentation released, it was actually:

      Ecuador to Sweden: "Nope"

      I thought it was just the UK being obstructive too, but apparently no one could agree on anything.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!