According to press releases, the 180 degree turn by Swedish Director of Public Prosecutions, Marianne Ny to questioning the Australian in London is entirely due to the statute of limitations on his alleged crimes, which are set to expire this August. If he is not formally charged by then, the Swedish prosecutor will have to come up with a Plan B if she wants to keep harassing Assange.
So is the statute of limitations the reason Ms Ny is now willing to interview Assange in London? Or is it something else?
Ms Ny is on the record as claiming that in her view " to perform an interview with him at the Ecuadorean embassy in London would lower the quality of the interview".
Advertisement
Enter Ove Bring, Professor of International Law at the Swedish National Defence College. According to Bring, "the public prosecutor's refusal to question Assange in London until now has got zip to do with the law and everything to do with her perceived 'prestige' ". He said as much two and a half years ago in a Swedish blog, Friatider.se but its relevance today is undiluted.
So far Sweden's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been unable to rebut Prof Bring who has caught Ny out several times. In the early days of the extradition shenanigans against Assange, Marianne Ny claimed that British as well as Swedish law prohibited her from questioning Assange anywhere but in Sweden. Not in person and not by video. She stated as much on 20 November 2010.
But according to Bring she was not honest.
Two weeks later in early December, Bring recalls that she told TIME Magazine the very same thing. By now Brings expected her economy with the truth.
Two months later, Ms. Ny suddenly did a 180. In London, in early February 2011, she admitted that it was possible for her if she so choose to interview Assange in London (in cooperation with the good offices of London's Metropolitan Police Service). She just didn't choose to.
Well what do you know? She could even engage him in telephone conference or a videoconference if she wanted. Amazing.
Advertisement
All three avenues for questioning a witness or a suspect are provided for within the framework of a system for legal co-operation amongst nations called Mutual Legal Assistance.
It's worth noting that while the UK Home Office accedes in most cases to MLA requests, it has wide discretion. Should it conclude for instance that Sweden is engaged in a politically motivated investigation or prosecution, then the UK could refuse Sweden's request.
Also if the UK concludes that "there are substantial grounds for believing that the Swedish request has been made for the purpose of investigating, prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his/her political opinions", then the request could [also] be refused.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
46 posts so far.