SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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").
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ledow on Tuesday October 20 2015, @07:19AM
For not interviewing a known criminal (in the UK at the very least) at his behest in his hideout?
Sorry, but that's not proof of a conspiracy as much as refusing to play games by Assange's rules. My comparison with Assange is really to a prisoner on the roof of a prison. It's like saying that we should give him a trial there and then, on the rooftop, rather than bring him down and do it by the court's schedule inside the court.
There's nothing so special about Assange that a) anyone wants him (probably even the Ecuadorians by now), or b) he should be an exception to normal procedure. And note that this is a lawyer's advice. This means that it's probably not personal opinion but some fact of law that makes it more safe to question him only within arrest procedures and courts of law and official proceedings, not strolling up to his adopted home with an armful of lawyers at his behest and not be able to use anything that he says because of the way it was done. Additionally, Sweden were quite within their rights to ignore that "advice" (but ignoring a lawyer's advice is normally quite a stupid thing to do, especially in the country they are trained to practice law in, especially if they are a lawyer for the CPS).
Please note that lawyers for the CPS are not lawyers like you know them. There is no money in prosecution, all the money is in defence or corporate. Prosecution a thankless, horrible, sometimes unrewarding and dangerous job. As a lawyer in that position, you're only interested in PROSECUTING the case to the full extent, gathering evidence to prove that you have a case (ironically, to the CPS itself!) worthy of subjecting a person to charges and a court case. As such, a prosecuting lawyer advising an entire country to back off means they know that it would potentially affect a prosecution (i.e. getting information out of him via non-standard procedure in a non-protected environment, where you may sully the evidence you do gather and not be able to use it against him in court).
You can misinterpret this all you like. Until he comes out, is arrested, charged with skipping bail, stands trial, serves his punishment and THEN is handed off to the Swedes anyway (the UK are legally obliged to do this, no matter what, and it's EU law that says so so it would actually apply if the US didn't exist anyway), nobody can say anything and every week he'll slip out some "press release" like he's been doing for the last few years to try to win favour with a public that - at best - are apathetic. The average person doesn't understand 1% of why he's there or not, or even what Wikileaks is. So it's all moot.
But before you run off on a conspiracy theory, investigate the legality of his situation even without US involvement. He's skipped bail on a UK court, while being wanted for questioning by a Swedish court, neither of which can deport him without HUGE implications for the EU in general and which will probably be blocked and/or punished by the rest of the EU (the EU is not one country - hell, we can't even agree how much we should all pay to be in it and there is in-fighting all the time! Some countries in it would do anything to cause a fuss about such things, and use it to bury their own bad news quite happily).
You don't get to choose where you are questioned when you're on the run from being questioned. It's as simple as that. It's like saying that a criminal should get to choose which cell he's put into, or how it should be decorated, or at what time he can be interviewed. That's not how it works, especially not if you've skipped bail in the country you're trying to get to host such things.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 20 2015, @08:16AM
Then why have they been spending so many years making him an exception to normal procedure, that the time limit is running out?
Even the Swedes admit (now) that normal procedure would be to interview him in the UK.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by romlok on Tuesday October 20 2015, @01:32PM
Except, if you read even the summary, you'll notice that the CPS were advising against questioning Assange in London in January 2011 - over a year and a half before he skipped bail.
At that time, he was on British soil, under house arrest, and the courts/CPS could have brought him in to a location of their choice for questioning at any time.
(Score: 3, Informative) by rondon on Tuesday October 20 2015, @02:53PM
Shill for a shilling? Shill for a pound? How much do they pay you to shill, Ledow. I see people address you with the facts every day, and you ignore them.