Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Swedish Prosecutors Drop Sexual Assault Investigations Against Julian Assange

posted by janrinok on Thursday August 13 2015, @09:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the just-another-5-years dept.

c0lo writes:

ABC (Australia) reports

Swedish prosecutors said they had dropped investigations into allegations of sexual assault made in 2010 against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange because they had run out of time to bring charges.

"Now that the statute of limitations has expired on certain offences, I am obliged to drop part of the investigation," prosecutor Marianne Ny said.

But prosecutors said they would continue with investigations over a further allegation of rape against Assange, also made in 2010.
...
They have a further five years to bring any charges over an allegation of rape.

In other news, Sweden and Ecuador have agreed to hold talks aimed at paving the way for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to be questioned over allegations of sexual assault, with 9news reporting that

Assange has challenged Swedish prosecutors to come to his refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy in London to take his statement on sex attack claims.
...
The 44-year-old Australian, who has been living at the embassy for more than three years, said in a statement on Thursday that he was an innocent man and hadn't been charged.

"Come to the embassy to take my statement or promise not to send me to the United States," he said, saying the actions of Swedish prosecutors were "beyond incompetence".

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Swedish Prosecutors Drop Sexual Assault Investigations Against Julian Assange | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 34 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: 3, Informative) by takyon on Thursday August 13 2015, @11:39PM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Thursday August 13 2015, @11:39PM (#222580) Journal

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-assange-supporters-ordered-forfeit-bail [theguardian.com]

    Julian Assange's supporters have been ordered to forfeit £93,500 in bail money after the WikiLeaks founder sought political asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

    A court ruled on Monday that the payments must be made within a month by nine friends and backers who in 2010 pledged £140,000 to guarantee Assange would abide by bail conditions during a failed legal challenge to extradition proceedings brought by authorities in Sweden, where he faces allegations of rape and sexual assault.

    Assange broke his bail conditions in June this year when he took refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in Knightsbridge after he lost a supreme court challenge to the validity of the European arrest warrant that demanded his return to Sweden for questioning. He was due to be sent to Sweden within days when he took up residence in the diplomatic mission, where he was granted political asylum.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   3  

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @02:46AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @02:46AM (#222646)

    No one has the balls to charge him with a crime, yet somehow there is bail involved.

    The Swedish gov't ALREADY questioned him and told him he could leave the country.
    ...then, all of a sudden, his initial interrogators are called massively incompetent.

    The gov't who made the screwup COULD go to where he is and do another interview--but they won't.

    This is clearly not about a criminal offense.
    This is evil political bullshit with the USA behind it.
    Every official involved in this deserves a slow, ugly, painful death.

    -- gewg_

    • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday August 14 2015, @08:56AM

      by TheRaven (270) on Friday August 14 2015, @08:56AM (#222743) Journal
      Right, because it sets a really great precedent for officers of the court to not follow the procedure that's enacted in law when it's inconvenient. If expediency is the main goal, they should have just shot Assange when they had him in custody. After all, the whole presenting evidence and trial thing is inconvenient and, by your logic, there's a good case for skipping it when it seems like it might be expensive or inconvenient.
      --
      sudo mod me up

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @10:06AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @10:06AM (#222762)

        They told him he could leave.
        He left.
        By what twisted logic is he required to return?
        Let me remind you again that HE HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME.

        As stated, the correct tack would be to have the party that reversed its position making the effort required in pursuing this further.

        -- gewg_