• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Julian Assange: Sweden suspends rape investigation


Not really, I see you linked Glenn Greenwald, and he's not exactly an impartial expert on Swedish law.
From a Swedish law docent (who happens to be quoted by Greenwald):

Also in the same post:

See above.

I'm not trying to argue that the case has been extremely well handled.

Thanks. I'll give this a proper read tonight. What are your thoughts on this specific part?

"The process require a request from another state, a decision by Sweden's supreme court on whether extradition was possible, and finally a decision by government to go forward with the extradition." [my emphasis; p61]

The internal communications in the Australian government go on to note:

"The Swedish government could deny an extradition or temporary surrender that the supreme court had approved, but if the supreme court denied an extradition or temporary surrender application, then the matter ended there; ie, the government could not approve a process that the supreme court had rejected."

It appears there was a response to Klamberg from Greenwald - http://www.twitlonger.com/show/j0q3kq



Thanks. I'll give this a proper read tonight. What are your thoughts on this specific part?

It appears there was a followup from Greenwald - http://www.twitlonger.com/show/j0q3kq

If the government was to assert itself before a ruling from the courts, and in this case a ruling on a hypothetical extradition request, I'm leaning towards that it would be found unconstitutional. (I'm going to slightly expand on this below)

His followup is basically the same argument; i.e. "The government has veto power why don't they just state how they will use it" and not taking into account that the court should rule first.

And that that blog you linked:
If there is a general principle of Swedish law, or a specific provision, prohibiting an administrative body – in this case the government – from announcing in advance how it intends to decide on a specific request, I would like to know it (this is a sincere request – if better informed readers can enlighten me on this, I’d be grateful).
This person is not an expert on Swedish law and the bit about "announcing in advance how it intends to decide on a specific request [and yet again, we're talking about a hypothetical request]" is literally the crux of it.
From the Instrument of Government (which is part of the constitution of Sweden):
Chapter 11. Art. 3.
Neither the Riksdag, nor a public authority, may determine how a court of law shall adjudicate an individual case or otherwise apply a rule of law in a particular case.
Nor may any other public authority determine how judicial responsibilities shall be distributed among individual judges.

Art. 4.
No judicial function may be performed by the Riksdag except to the extent laid down in fundamental law or the Riksdag Act.
Now technically the Government (which is what holds the veto power) as the executive branch does not fall under the Riksdag Act, but the wording is indicative of the general principle. (and honestly there is a finite limit on how much time I can spend to chase down what exactly falls under what jurisdiction especially since there are international agreements that also needs to be adhered to.)

At the very least a decision to veto before a court ruling would set off a minor constitutional crisis, because (even if it's is beneficiary to Assange) it is essentially denying Assange access to a fair hearing the courts.
Top Bottom