Hacker News Reader

Comment by DavidVoid | Hacker News Reader

What you've heard is false. The investigation was dropped simply because there was no way to proceed with the investigation with him still hiding away in the embassy. The investigation will be reopened if he returns to Sweden before August 2020 when the statute of limitations expires for the minor rape allegation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39973864

View on HN

Since I was not very familiar with the Swedish case, I checked Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Swedish_sexual_...

It seems that the allegations were dropped after initial questioning and he was told he was free to go, then a special prosecutor reopened the case and asked to question Assange, who by then was out of the country.

The statute of limitations for most of the allegations seems to have expired primarily because of the indecisiveness or otherwise mishandling of the case by the special prosecutor who reopened it in the first place, who maintained she couldn't interview Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy- which seems to have been incorrect.

From the wikipedia article:

In 2010, the prosecutor said Swedish law prevented her from questioning anyone by video link or in the London embassy. In March 2015, after public criticism from other Swedish law practitioners, she changed her mind and agreed to interrogate Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, with interviews finally beginning on 14 November 2016.[167] These interviews involved police, Swedish prosecutors and Ecuadorian officials and were eventually published online.[168] By this time, the statute of limitations had expired on all three of the less serious allegations.

Sweden doesn't have trials in absentia? Judging by this document(https://rm.coe.int/168058f4b0), they do:

-------------------------------------------

Chapter 46 (proceedings in the district courts) Section 15 a If the matter can be satisfactorily investigated, the case may be adjudicated notwithstanding the fact that the defendant has appeared only by counsel or has failed to appear if:

1. there is no grounds to impose a criminal sanction other than fine, imprisonment for a maximum of three months, conditional sentence, or probation, or such sanctions jointly,

2. after service of the summons upon the defendant, he has fled or remains in hiding in such a manner that he cannot be brought to the main hearing, or

3. the defendant suffers from serious mental disturbance and his or her attendance as a result thereon is unnecessary.

Orders under the Penal Code, Chapter 34, Section 1, paragraph 1, clause 1, shall have the same standing as the sanctions stated in the first paragraph, clause 1.

However, this does not apply if, in connection with such an order, a conditional release from imprisonment shall be declared forfeited as to a term of imprisonment exceeding three months.

In the situations stated in first paragraph, clause 2, the case may be adjudicated even if the defendant has not been served the notice of the hearing.

Procedural issues may be decided even if the defendant has failed to appear in court. (SFS 2001:235)

-------------------------------------------

Looks like a perfect fit for Assange's case. Why didn't they try him this way?

I believe there were never any criminal charges filed against him, he was only ever investigated.

Okay, let's look at a hypothetical - you say the investigation was dropped because they couldn't interview him. What is the practical difference to the investigators if they interview him and he says "I refuse to comment on anything"? There must be some way to move forward without cooperation from the accused - Assange isn't the first person to flee a country pending an investigation. Why didn't they do so?

Looking at Swedish law, they have a rough equivalent of Miranda - https://open.karnovgroup.se/processratt/fuk Section 12(google translate):

- Do not have to comment on the suspicion and not otherwise have to contribute to the investigation of their own debt

It is unfortunately common for rape cases to go unreported/unsolved because of the lack of physical evidence. I certainly don't blame investigators for trying to interview the acused, but without evidence or a confession there's nothing for them to do.

This is correct according to the text of the law.

However, according to precedents the criteria “the matter can be satisfactorily investigated” is not easily satisfied in case of serious crime that is contested (see the court case RH 2011:4).

No, they chose not to interview him at the embassy or via weblink, because had they done so, the case would have been closed. They rather keep it open.

Accused criminals don't get to set the rules. There are many jurisdictions where criminal trials in absentia are not possible, legally. That's mostly to the benefit of the accused.

>That's mostly to the benefit of the accused.

How? if they can get a conviction they should get the conviction. For eg, Vijay Mallya from india was convicted of a crime and india is now seeking his extradition. how does it make sense that you keep the case open?

Mostly it's due to the accused's right to confront the accusations and be heard. There is also a lot of ugly history of using trial in absentia to, for example, get rid of political enemies: quickly convene a trial and convict them while they are abroad, avoiding a long trial allowing them to make their case and forcing them into exile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_in_absentia

Note that Mallya has not been convicted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijay_Mallya#Accusations

He is charged with different crimes and therefore there is a warrant out, and a request for extradition: "When he failed to appear, the Supreme Court said the contempt case would only proceed further after he is produced before the court".

There are also multiple court verdicts in favour of banks and business partners, but those are all civil law, not criminal.

ok thanks for the correction

He was a suspect, not a criminal.

"suspect" and "accused criminal" are synonyms.

Technically yes, but in reality, no.

Consider “he whom rape charges were brought against” and “the accused rapist”.

Or how about this? “The accused child-murderer Assange”

Words, put certain ways by bad actors towards bad ends because they are inflammatory, are a thing.

The police in Sweden and every other country would save so much money if they could just ask the suspected criminals to be interviewed over skype instead of having to fetch them and take them to a police station. Or why not ask the person to be interviewed where they want it to happen and the police can come to them, with the prosecutor.

We could also save so much money if the criminals would not need to go to prison for which we pay, but decide where they want to stay and inform the police.

That's what we do for billionaires like Martha Stewart and some millionaires. Anyway there is a huge difference between suspect, person of interest, and convict.

With we you surely mean the US, don't you? I only know about "Martha Stewart" from the famous "Don't talk to the police" video.

You are misrepresenting the article or may not understand the finer details here. One example: Ny says they "Sweden did not expect Ecuador's co-operation in formally notifying Mr Assange of the allegations against him", yet that makes it clear that Sweden has not attempted to formally notifying Mr Assange.

That's ridiculous reasoning, if there was evidence he could be convicted without ever being interviewed or being present.

They can’t convict without a trial, and they can’t get a trial until they have Assange in custody or if he agrees to a trial via an intermediary.

TIL: some European countries allow a trial in absentia, some don't.

Do you have a reference that they are not possible in Sweden?

I can't find anything either way.

Even if they're possible, the fact that they haven't chosen to do so doesn't mean they don't have evidence. What would the point be anyway? They have to get custody to actually enforce any possible sentence.

The charges were dropped by the accuser long before the Swedish authorities dropped their own investigation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com