Accurate reporting on the one remaining allegation

In the interest of accuracy, journalists and the public in general, should note the following facts:

1) Julian Assange has not been charged at any time.

2) Julian Assange was cleared of ’rape’ five and a half years ago:

On 21 August 2010 the Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne stated she "made the assessment that the evidence did not disclose any offence of rape". On 25 August 2010 she stated that "The conduct alleged by SW disclosed no crime at all and that file (K246314-10) would be closed." The case was then closed.

The matter was subsequently re-opened with a different prosecutor after the intervention of a senior Swedish politician, Claes Borgstrom, during the heat of Mr Assange’s conflict with the United States. The new ’preliminary investigation’ has been in stasis since 2010 and has not issued a finding. Mr Assange has not been asked a single question. That an extradition warrant was issued for him under such circumstances has been the subject of serious debate and led to the UK Parliament changing the law in 2014 to ban further cases of "extradition without charge".

3) It is on record that Swedish authorities unlawfully disclosed the identities of Julian Assange and the alleged complainants to the Swedish tabloid press, damaging their reputations and exposing them to vilification.

4) The US states that there is a pending prosecution against Julian Assange for espionage and other offences related to his WikiLeaks publications. The US grand jury against him was launched six months prior to his visit to Sweden. He was granted political asylum in relation to political persecution by the United States. The United Kingdom and Sweden have refused to provide an assurance that he will not be transferred to the United States.

5) ’SW’ felt she was "railroaded by police and others around her":

Her SMS messages from the day of the police visit and immediately after, held by the Swedish authorities, state that she "did not want to put any charges on JA but that the police were keen on grabbing him" (14:26); and that she was “shocked when they arrested JA because she only wanted him to take a test” (17:06); that she “did not want to accuse JA for anything”; and at 22:25 that “it was the police who made up the charges”. This is corroborated by witness statements taken by Swedish authorities from friends of ’SW’, Marie Thorn and Hanna Rosquist. These statements include SW stating that she felt she had been "railroaded by police and others around her”.

6) The prosecution formally admitted that ’SW’ did not intend to make a complaint and only sought advice about STD tests:

"After AA and SW spoke to each other and realised that they had both had intercourse with [JA] during the currency of his visit in circumstances where respectively they had or might have been or become unprotected against disease or pregnancy, SW wanted [JA] to get tested for disease. On 20 August 2010 SW went to the police to seek advice." (Agreed Statement of Facts to the UK Supreme Court, 2012)

7) Why is this relevant now?

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has decided that Julian Assange must be immediately freed and compensated. The UN body specialised in situations of arbitrary detention have condemned Sweden and the United Kingdom for Julian Assange’s arbitrary and unlawful detention. He is entitled to compensation from both countries.

Since January 2014, there has been almost unanimous calls from Swedish jurists, former prosecutors and the editor of Sweden’s top legal journal criticising Swedish prosecutor in the Assange case and calling for her to be removed.

In November 2014 the Swedish Court of Appeal found that the prosecutor was in breach of her duty to progress an investigation expeditiously and at minimum inconvenience and suspicion to the suspect by refusing to take Julian Assange’s statement over the last 4.5 years. As a result of this breach, last week three misdemeanor allegations expired.

Sweden’s legal community is practically unanimous that the Assange case has been mishandled and driven by the prosecutor’s attempts to save face. The Secretary General of the Swedish Bar Association Anne Ramberg has said: "The Assange story has become a less than flattering adventure not only for the English courts’ handling of the case, but also for the Swedish prosecutor". Svante Thorsell, an eminent defence lawyer and columnist, wrote that: "Something is rotten in the Assange case... the prosecutor’s passivity in this case is a crime against decency." Former prosecutor Rolf Hillegren has called for her removal, stating that Julian Assange has been "discriminated against". The editor of the Law journal Dagens Juridik, Stefan Wahlberg, told Swedish Radio that "the bottom line is it’s the prosecutor who has the responsibility, no one else!" and that "Prestige has played a big part."

Read the original police report in English and Swedish from November 2010.

2298 days under house arrest.

Our Twitter Feed

Read more on twitter...

Click to share this post on Twitter Share this on Facebook