No, he hasnt. He has been accused of one. Its how the justice system in this country has worked for over a thousand years. Someone is accused of something, we presume they are innocent until proven otherwise.

Even the bail jumping accusation has yet to be proven in a court of law.

No, they havent. They have judged that the procedure which resulted in an EAW being served on Mr Assange was followed correctly and as per British law should be followed. They havent judged the merit of the allegations.I think the standard of evidence should be that which would likely lead to trial in this country as a minimum.

Yes he has. He has broken his bail conditions, the entire world has seen him breach bail.

Yes they have. Are there, or are there not, allegations of rape and sexual crimes to answer in Sweden? What other definition of "having a case to answer" is there?
Of course they haven't judged the merit of the allegations, that's for a trial to do.
So you think that evidence that would be produced in a trial in Sweden should be put before a British court first? That would immediately prejudice the trial in Sweden and would lead to a defacto trial taking place in Britain.

Once again, you are demanding a trial take place before a suspect is arrested.

You do not "have a case to answer" until you are charged with an offence. Prior to that you are being questioned, not judged, and of course have the right to say nothing under questioning as you do not "have a case to answer" at that point. Until all parties have been questioned and a decision made to prosecute then there is no case to answer. It is simply an allegation under investigation - nobody who is under investigation has a case to answer, it is up to the police to gather evidence to submit to the prosecuting body to determine whether there is a case to answer. Until the point when someone says "You are formally charged with the offence of......." then there is no case to answer. That's a fundamental legal principle.

Then it needs to be proven in a court of law. Thankfully we arent in the middle ages anymore and we have moved past that kind of primitive thinking. Maybe you would like to see the mutaween patrolling Britains streets, i can see the pitfalls.

The fairly clear one of their being some corroborating evidence. We dont prosecute every allegation you know, there is a standard of evidence that needs to be met before we proceed.
No, its for the DPP to do.
No, i think, the same as we do here, in this country, that a certain standard of evidence needs to be met before a prosecution takes place.


no, im not.

So you are demanding someone be charged before being arrested?

And funnily enough, the Swedish police gathered evidence and submitted it to the prosecuting body who determined there is a case to answer and issued an arrest warrant.

yes ok Smokey, because I and the rest of the world have seen Assange break his bail that means I want religious police. I think everyone could see a crime was committed on 9/11, it doesnt always need a court for us to know when a crime has taken place. The courts formalise it and enforce the punishment.

For the love of god Smokey lad! What do you think Swedish prosecutors are there for! It is not up to us to try a case that is under Swedish jurisdiction. The Swedish prosecutors have decided the case deserves Assange be arrested.

Yes, and the Swedish prosecutors have done so in this case. Unless you are suggesting the UK CPS should investigate the case? In which case evidence and arrests will need to be made.

Yes, which is the Swedish prosecutors job, and here in the UK that evidence is not put to the courts before a decision to charge is made, and the decision to charge is taken AFTER an arrest.

Yes you are, the only way for the courts to decide on the evidence is to have it put forward to them, and the only way to decide on the merits of that evidence is to hear evidence from the suspect who could potentially refute the evidence. That is a trial. Which cannot happen outside the relevant jurisdiction and cannot be done BEFORE an arrest.

I have said no such thing, nor have I implied it. You asked for the definition of "a case to answer", I gave you it. That is all.



Again, you are getting confused about having a case to answer. All that has been established is that there is sufficient cause for an investigation, and for that investigation to proceed properly the Swedish police need to question Julian Assange. They are not the same thing.

In terms of Swedish law and judicial process, it is a lot further down the road than there being "cause for an investigation".

The investigation is at an advanced stage and the second interview is pretty much a legal precursor to a trail.

Still haven't read those links then?

Well you seem to have no respect whatsoever for the presumption of innocence. You seem to think that punishment can and should be doled out because ‘you saw it’ and a trial in a court of law in front of 12 peers is as pointless as it is irrelevant, you have made a judgement and can proclaim guilt. After all you saw it on TV and that is of course infallible. Its not far from the mutaween
And? Are we supposed to just accept whatever Swedish prosecutors say because they are Swedish? What nonsense logic demands that we trust Swedish prosecutors of which we have no influence on the procedures or checks and balances, more than our own prosecutors?

A British court decides if he is extradited. If he is subject to a miscarriage of justice, we are complicit in it. And if we dont have the checks and balances in place to stop people being extradited to face a miscarriage of justice we have wronged.

Saying 'but they're Swedes and they told us it was alright' is a pathetic defence.

Yes, I am, shockingly, suggesting that prior to the UK justice system detaining and forcibly extraditing someone that we apply the protections, thought so necessary in this country.

There is a reason we have a DPP, there is a reason we have a CPS, there is a reason that we dont prosecute every allegation, Those reasons aren’t removed because the Swedes told us everything was ok.

That’s right, it should be up to the british court to decide whether the standard of evidence is high enough to justify a trial and extradition.
No, im clearly not. You can keep inventing this strawman if you want, but it looks silly.

Especially when you now seem to equate the examination of the prima facie case (not proved in a British court) with a full blown trial.