Britain, Not Sweden, Appealing Julian Assange Bail

The Guardian reports it was Great Britain, not Sweden, that decided to appeal the release of Wilileak's founder Julian Assange on bond.

The Crown Prosecution Service will go to the high court tomorrow to seek the reversal of a decision to free the WikiLeaks founder on bail, made yesterday by a judge at City of Westminster magistrates court.

It had been widely thought Sweden had made the decision to oppose bail, with the CPS acting merely as its representative. But today the Swedish prosecutor's office told the Guardian it had "not got a view at all on bail" and that Britain had made the decision to oppose bail.

The spokesperson for the Swedish Prosecutor's office says they don't have a view on bail and will not be submitting any evidence at tomorrow's hearing. The CPS has confirmed this. [More...]

The Guardian, which has seen the appeal, says the grounds are "Assange must be kept in prison until a decision is made whether to extradite him" and that the process could take months.

Is CPS now saying British law doesn't allow bail pending extradition? If that were the case, wouldn't the judge who set bail have known that? And why didn't the CPS make that argument at the initial hearing?

Also curious: At yesterday's hearing, Sweden opposed bail.

But a starkly different portrait of Assange was painted in court by Gemma Lindfield, representing the Swedish authorities, who said that "complaints have been made by two women of a serious sexual nature". Opposing bail, she said: "The court has already found Mr Assange is a flight risk and nothing has changed since last week."

So yesterday they opposed it and today they have "no view at all?" Something is off here.

< Time Names Facebook Founder Zuckerberg "Person of the Year" | Kwame Kilpatrick Hit With 89 Page RICO Indictment >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Call me crazy, but I (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by caseyOR on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 07:11:48 PM EST
    sense the not quite invisible hand of the U.S. national security state at work here.

    Of course, if Assange was free on bail it would be easier for some black ops team to snatch him up and fly him to Gitmo or some black site.

    Yes, it is that "special relationshIp" (none / 0) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 07:43:12 PM EST
    at work.  

    my, how odd. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by cpinva on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 09:32:55 PM EST
    you'd naturally assume it would be sweden which, after all, produced the warrant leading to assange's incarceration in a brit jail, that would be objecting to him being released on bail. you'd think.

    nothing about this whole case passes the "smell test" at this point.

    Can We Get a Definition of Serious (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 11:45:12 AM EST
    "complaints have been made by two women of a serious sexual nature"

    I would be extremely hard pressed to find him guilty of anything more than a low-level misdemeanor, maybe two, and that's pushing it.  

    Has another person been arrested and extradited for similar crimes ?  I highly doubt it.  These governments are wasting a lot of money on a case that in all likelihood with net nothing.

    And the US, for all the bluster of republican anti-One World Order non-sense, and anti-UN rhetoric, they sure seem to cool with the US arresting just about anyone, anywhere, for just about anything.  And yes, this administration is definitely towing the republican line when it comes to international affairs.  Which is basically we will do whatever we want on the world stage, to hell with decency, precedence, and established law.

    Good point Scott... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 11:58:28 AM EST
    It's astounding how quick the bedwetters went running for the shelter of the New World Order in an effort to silence the man.

    I suppose Great Britain (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 10:16:16 PM EST
    may take the position Mr. Assange presents a danger to people/females in Great Britain.

    Flight risk (none / 0) (#5)
    by diogenes on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 10:25:14 PM EST
    Whether or not British law allows for bail in extradition cases, isn't bail kind of naive?  When they catch someone in my state with a warrant from Kansas who knows full well about the Kansas warrant, they don't exactly let him post bail and promise to return for an extradition hearing.
    Assange can settle this by waiving extradition.  Oops--I forgot--by extending the case he can create months more drama and puff up his ego yet further.

    except................................. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by cpinva on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 03:40:30 PM EST
    mr. assange, unlike toto from kansas, surrendered himself to british authorities, upon learning of the swedish warrant. were he a true "flight risk", he would have attempted to leave the U.K., upon learning he was wanted there. so your analogy makes no sense.

    of course, this whole case makes little sense, given the actual charge sweden wants to "question" him regarding, which is "sexual misconduct", not rape. even that seems pretty far fetched, since the brit judge granting bail suggested the evidence provided by sweden didn't support a reasonable presumption of successful prosecution.


    Assange should have (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 10:15:48 AM EST
    surrendered in Switzerland.

    he isn't a famous filmmaker, (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 03:42:50 PM EST
    and the women in question weren't under age.

    Assange should have surrendered in Switzerland.