This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/20/julian-assange-appeal-arrest-warrant-swedish-court

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Julian Assange’s appeal to lift arrest warrant is rejected by Swedish court Julian Assange: Swedish court rejects appeal to lift arrest warrant
(35 minutes later)
Stockholm’s appeal court has rejected a demand by Julian Assange’s lawyers to lift the arrest warrant against him, leaving the case deadlocked and the WikiLeaks founder still facing extradition to Sweden should he renounce his asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy. Stockholm’s appeal court has rejected a demand by Julian Assange’s lawyers to lift the arrest warrant against him, leaving the WikiLeaks founder still facing extradition to Sweden should he renounce his asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy.
“In making this assessment account must be taken of the fact that Julian Assange is suspected of crimes of a relatively serious nature,” the court said in a statement. A Swedish prosecutor first sought Assange’s arrest in November 2010 to face sexual assault and rape allegations, which he denies. “In making this assessment, account must be taken of the fact that Julian Assange is suspected of crimes of a relatively serious nature,” the court said in a statement on Thursday. A Swedish prosecutor first sought Assange’s arrest four years ago following sexual assault and rape allegations, which he denies.
“There is a great risk that he will flee and thereby evade legal proceedings if the detention order is set aside. In the view of the court of appeal, these circumstances mean that the reasons for detention still outweigh the intrusion or other detriment entailed by the detention order.”“There is a great risk that he will flee and thereby evade legal proceedings if the detention order is set aside. In the view of the court of appeal, these circumstances mean that the reasons for detention still outweigh the intrusion or other detriment entailed by the detention order.”
However, the court also noted that Sweden’s investigation into Assange had come to a halt and prosecutors’ failure to examine alternative avenues of investigation “is not in line with their obligation – in the interests of everyone concerned – to move the preliminary investigation forward”, the court said, putting pressure on prosecutors to find new ways to break the deadlock. But the court also noted that Sweden’s investigation into Assange had come to a halt and prosecutors’ failure to examine alternative avenues of investigation “is not in line with their obligation – in the interests of everyone concerned – to move the preliminary investigation forward”. The ruling is expected to put pressure on prosecutors to find new ways to break the deadlock.
Following a rejection of their demands by a lower court in July, Assange’s lawyers argued in extensive submissions to the appeal court that a European arrest warrant issued in November 2010 was being employed as a “coercive measure” against him because it could not be carried out, thereby condemning him to “deprivation of liberty” in order to exercise his right to asylum. Following a rejection of their demands by a lower court in July, Assange’s lawyers argued in submissions to the appeal court that a European arrest warrant issued in November 2010 was being employed as a “coercive measure” against him because it could not be carried out, thereby condemning him to “deprivation of liberty” in order to exercise his right to asylum.
The submission said that rather than explore possible avenues to break the deadlock, the prosecutor had “violated the principles of consideration, urgency, and effectiveness” by refusing to interview Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy and “hiding behind the arrest warrant” as an excuse. Britain’s Foreign Office said last month it would “actively welcome” a request by the prosecutor to question Assange inside the embassy and would “do absolutely everything to facilitate” such a move.
The appeal court also rejected a demand from Assange’s lawyers for the prosecutor to hand over 200 text messages sent by the WikiLeak founder’s accusers around the time of his alleged crimes.
Assange has always claimed his innocence and that he would be prepared to face a Swedish court were it not for a threat that he would be extradited to the US for political crimes. Neither the US nor Swedish governments have responded to his requests for guarantees. Assange has not been charged with any crime, but is being investigated over allegations of rape and sexual molestation.
In response to the appeal, the Swedish prosecutors in the case, Marianne Ny and Ingrid Isgren, accepted there was “a temporary obstacle” to executing the arrest warrant, but that it was nonetheless essential to prevent Assange from evading justice. His presence in the Ecuadorian embassy was voluntary and so did not constitute a deprivation of liberty, they said, thereby nullifying defence arguments about disproportionality.
The text messages contained sensitive information about the two women in the case, they said, and information had previously leaked on to the internet and led to the women’s harassment. There were, therefore, “grave reasons” to protect the messages, the prosecutors added.
Legal opinion in Sweden is sharply divided on the case, with some arguing that the deadlock must be broken, principally by the prosecutors travelling to London to interview Assange. Politicians are reluctant to be seen to put pressure on prosecutors, while public opinion has wearied of the case.
Mats Larsson, a columnist for Expressen, Sweden’s largest tabloid, argued last month: “Everyone is tired of the Assange circus … it is high time it was resolved.”