Tuesday, 19 July 2011
Assange Appeal to U.K. High Court: skeleton argument [warning - explicit language]
Julian Assange (of Wikileaks fame) has concluded his appeal to Britain's High Court concerning an unfavourable lower court judgment in relation to extradition proceedings initiated on behalf of the Swedish Prosecution Authority and, the Justices retired to consider their verdict at the end of the day on 13 July 2011.
For perhaps the first time since the mainstream media began reporting on the issue, a relatively clear-eyed view of the complainants' evidence is publicly available concerning the circumstances of the alleged rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.
The blog Sweden vs. Assange has posted the skeleton argument put before the Court by Assange's legal team.
The Assange defence team asserted on the basis of the two complainants statements:
Julian Assange engaged in ’rough and impatient’ consensual foreplay with complainant AA, and he complied with her wish that he used a condom once she expressed her desire for him to use one.
Julian Assange used a condom upon claimant AA’s request. The condom split.
Julian Assange pressed his naked erect penis against AA whilst they were voluntarily sharing a small bed. They had shared the bed for several days and engaged in consensual sexual activity previously.
In the context of repeated acts of consensual sexual intercourse, Julian Assange penetrated SW whilst she was ’half-asleep’. The penetration was met by consent on the part of SW, in full knowledge that Julian Assange was not wearing protection.
It is noted that the Swedish Prosecution Authority rejects the claim that all sexual activity was consensual. Details can be found in the translated European Arrest Warrant.
It is also noted that to date Assange appears not been formally charged with any sexual offense under Swedish law, as by the Swedish Prosecution Authority's own admission the investigation is still only currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation".
Publicly available documents presented to earlier U.K. lower courts hearings can be found here.
Labels:
law
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment