The curious case of Julian Assange

Parliament house flag post

The curious case of Julian Assange

Posted 22/12/2010 by Elibritt Karlsen

Over the last few months there has been an enormous amount of material written in Australia and abroad about Julian Assange and the possible legal consequences that may flow from the publication of classified government material on his now famous WikiLeaks website. Similarly, and coinciding with this interest in WikiLeaks, there has been a huge amount of speculation in the media about his alleged sexual activities in Sweden earlier in the year and about the case being prepared by the Swedish public prosecution office in relation to a number of alleged sexual offences. This FlagPost entry will not draw upon such speculation or attempt to add to it. Rather, it will simply examine the ambit of Sweden’s sexual crimes legislation as it may apply to Assange.

By way of background, on 18 November 2010 the Stockholm District Court (Stockholms tingsrätt) ordered that Assange be detained for questioning in relation to a number of alleged sexual offences. An appeal on behalf of Assange was subsequently rejected by a Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) and thus on 20 November 2010, Interpol proceeded to issue a ‘Red Notice’ with respect to Assange to law enforcement agencies in its member countries. Interpol refers to a Red Notice as an ‘international wanted persons alert’. The legal basis for a Red Notice is an arrest warrant or court order issued by the judicial authorities in the country concerned. Though it is issued to seek the provisional arrest of a wanted person with a view to extradition, it is not in itself an arrest warrant. The media release issued by Interpol simply stated that Swedish authorities ‘want to question him in connection with a number of sexual offences’. Additionally, it states that it ‘cannot demand that any member country arrests the subject of a Red Notice and any individual wanted for arrest should be considered innocent until proven guilty’.
However, on 7 December 2010 Jennifer Robinson, one of Assange’s defence lawyers confirmed that ‘we have received communication from the police that a European Arrest Warrant has been communicated and validated here by the UK authorities’. A European Arrest Warrant or EAW is an arrest warrant that is valid throughout the European Union. This may have implications for Assange’s future extradition proceedings. As one reporter from the Guardian notes, ‘the European arrest warrant is being used to have thousands of people flown out to face charges that wouldn't stick in the UK’. See below for comments on double criminality. On 8 December 2010 Rob Stary, another one of Assange’s defence lawyers confirmed that ‘they haven’t seen charges that have been laid or intended to be laid’.

On 1 April 2005 the Sexual Offences Act came into operation in Sweden. A fact sheet issued by the Swedish Ministry of Justice explains that the purpose of the new legislation was to ‘further strengthen and make clear the absolute right of every individual to personal and sexual integrity and sexual self-determination’. Accordingly, consent to a sexual act is the central issue when determining whether or not a sexual crime has been committed. The offence of rape is set out in Chapter 6 of the Swedish Penal Code. In part, it states:

A person who by assault or otherwise by violence or by threat of a criminal act forces another person to have sexual intercourse or to undertake or endure another sexual act that, having regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years.
A 2008 Amnesty International Report on rape in the Nordic countries (Denmark,Sweden, Norway and Finland) observes that ‘according to the travaux préparatoire, only minor violence is required for an act to be considered rape [in Sweden]. It may be sufficient for the perpetrator to impede the victim’s movements, for example by holding the victim’s arms to pin her/him down, by applying body weight or by forcing the victim’s legs apart. The law does not require the presence of resistance on the part of the victim’.

The crime of rape was also broadened under the legislation adopted in 2005 to include cases of sexual exploitation. This refers to cases in which a person engages in sexual intercourse or some other comparable act with a person by inappropriately exploiting that person, due to:

  • unconsciousness,
  • sleep,
  • intoxication,
  • other drug influence,
  • illness,
  • physical injury,
  • mental disturbance, or
  • ‘in view of the circumstances in general – is in a helpless state’.
Amnesty International Sweden is of the view that other circumstances may also be applicable. For example, a person may be in a helpless state if unable to safeguard her or his sexual integrity. They are of the view that in such a situation, consent would not relieve the perpetrator of liability.

The offence of sexual coercion is an alternate offence under Chapter 6 of the Swedish Penal Code. It applies to a person who through unlawful coercion forces another person to undertake or endure a sexual act. The offence of sexual molestation applies to a person who exposes himself or herself to another person in a manner that is likely to cause discomfort or who otherwise by word or deed molests a person in a way that is likely to violate that person’s sexual integrity.

However, though these sexual crimes may appear comprehensive and comparatively far-reaching, Amnesty International Sweden is of the view that
many problems remain unresolved regarding the legal rights of women who are subjected to rape and sexual violence. The legal definition of rape may be part of the problem, together with the way the criminal courts examine and try rape cases. A particular concern is the fact that most rape cases never come to trial at all. Only a small number of reported rapes result in a prosecution, with an even smaller number resulting in a conviction. Instead, most rape investigations are closed at an early stage, usually with the explanation that ‘it cannot be proven that a crime has been committed.
On 27 October 2010 the Swedish Sexual Offences Commission tasked with assessing the effectiveness of the 2005 reforms recommended a broader provision on rape ‘which would mean that it should be punishable not only to inappropriately exploit someone who is in a state of helplessness but also someone who otherwise has difficulties in protecting their sexual integrity’.

It also proposed the introduction of a new consent-based provision to be called sexual abuse—‘through the offence of sexual abuse it is criminalised to carry out a sexual act with a person without the permission of that person...The provision makes clear the significance of consent and, in addition, ensures appropriate punishment for someone who engages in an act with someone who does not consent to it, whether or not coercion or exploitation has taken place’. Amnesty International Sweden similarly observes that

...linking the question of guilt in cases of rape to a lack of genuine and freely-given consent, rather than to the presence of violence, would bring Swedish legislation into line with international developments. The approach adopted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) does not require the use of violence and force, but defines rape as being committed where there are coercive circumstances that undermine the victim’s ability to give free and genuine consent. Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights has stated that States are obliged to punish and prosecute all sexual acts perpetrated in violation of the victim’s sexual autonomy.
Whether the Swedish Government eventually adopts these recommendations and makes the statutory amendments remains to be seen. It appears that such amendment is unlikely to happen any time soon as it took some seven years for the Swedish Parliament to previously reform its legislative provisions relating to sexual offences.

Professor Don Rothwell from the Australian National University has previously expressed the view that Assange may have multiple avenues to contest his extradition to Sweden—the proceedings for which are expected to occur in February 2011.

Extradition can be contested on the grounds of double criminality—where the crime is not recognised in the requesting and requested country (i.e. Sweden and the UK); the political offence exception—where extradition is sought for a political offence; or that the accused will not receive a fair trial...extradition proceedings can often be determined on technical grounds, such as irregularities in the paperwork accompanying an extradition request.
Significantly, the resolution of these extradition issues will not resolve the guilt or innocence of Assange. Any subsequent determination of his culpability will undoubtedly take place with a significant degree of publicity. This may nonetheless serve to highlight the difficulties that arise in proving crimes of a sexual nature both in Sweden and in other jurisdictions.

(Image source: http://www.indexoncensorship.org/tag/julian-assange/)


Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print

FlagPost

Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament


Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice

Archive

Syndication

Tagcloud

Refugees asylum immigration Australian foreign policy Parliament climate change elections women social security Australian Bureau of Statistics Employment indigenous Australians Sport illicit drugs gambling people trafficking taxation Medicare welfare reform Australian Defence Force higher education welfare policy United Nations health financing Asia Middle East criminal law disability Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency United States federal budget school education forced labour aid statistics Australian Electoral Commission WADA income management Industrial Relations emissions trading dental health Australia in the Asian Century steroids detention Private health insurance OECD ASADA labour force transport Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police people smuggling poker machines National Disability Insurance Scheme Australian Crime Commission 43rd Parliament slavery election results Papua New Guinea Australian Public Service constitution International Women's Day corruption Afghanistan Fair Work Act child protection Aviation debt federal election 2013 parliamentary procedure ALP New Zealand Newstart Parenting Payment Census politics High Court skilled migration voting mental health Federal Court terrorist groups Higher Education Loan Program HECS governance youth paid parental leave environment foreign debt gross debt net debt defence capability customs Senate doping health crime health risks multiculturalism aged care Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling sex slavery sea farers Special Rapporteur UK Parliament Electoral reform political parties banking firearms public policy Population violence against women domestic violence China ADRV terrorism science research and development social media pensions welfare ASIO intelligence community Australian Security Intelligence Organisation accountability public service reform Carbon Pricing Mechanism carbon tax mining military history employer employee fishing by-election European Union same sex relationships international relations coal seam gas family assistance planning Senators and Members United Nations Security Council Australian economy food vocational education and training Drugs health reform Indonesia children codes of conduct terrorist financing health system money laundering United Kingdom early childhood education Canada Financial sector national security fuel disability employment Tasmania integrity transparency Australian Secret Intelligence Service sexual abuse federal state relations World Trade Organization Australia housing affordability bulk billing water renewable energy children's health health policy Governor-General US economy export liquefied natural gas foreign bribery question time speaker superannuation expertise climate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leadership Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry food labelling Pacific Islands reserved seats new psychoactive substances synthetic drugs UNODC carbon markets Indigenous constitutional recognition of local government local government consumer laws PISA royal commission US politics language education baby bonus Leaders of the Opposition Parliamentary remuneration Australia Greens federal election 2010 servitude Trafficking Protocol energy forced marriage rural and regional Northern Territory Emergency Response ministries social citizenship human rights emissions reduction fund; climate change child care funding refugees immigration asylum procurement Indigenous health e-voting internet voting nsw state elections 44th Parliament 2015 ABS Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings Trade EU China soft power education Fiji India Disability Support Pension Antarctica Diplomacy by-elections state and territories workers Bills anti-corruption fraud bribery corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform innovation standards NATO Members of Parliament Scottish referendum Middle East; national security; terrorism social services Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 online grooming sexual assault of minors ACT Assembly public health smoking plain packaging tobacco cigarettes Asia; Japan; international relations Work Health and Safety Migration; asylum seekers; regional processing China; United States; international relations fiscal policy Racial Discrimination Act; social policy; human rights; indigenous Australians Foreign policy Southeast Asia Israel Palestine regional unemployment asylum refugees immigration political finance donations foreign aid Economics efficiency productivity human rights; Racial Discrimination Act employment law bullying asylum seekers Animal law; food copyright Australian Law Reform Commission industry peace keeping contracts workplace policies trade unions same-sex marriage disorderly conduct retirement Parliament House standing orders public housing prime ministers election timetable sitting days First speech defence budget submarines Somalia GDP forestry world heritage political engagement leave loading Trade; tariffs; safeguards; Anti-dumping public interest disclosure whistleblowing Productivity Commission regulation limitation period universities Ireland cancer gene patents genetic testing suspension of standing and sessional orders animal health live exports welfare systems infant mortality middle class welfare honorary citizen railways disciplinary tribunals standard of proof World Health Organisation arts international students skilled graduate visas temporary employment visas apologies roads Italy national heritage NHMRC nutrition anti-dumping Constitutional reform referendum Rent Assistance competition policy pharmaceutical benefits scheme obesity evidence law sacrament of confession US presidential election international days DFAT UN General Assembly deregulation Regulation Impact Statements administrative law small business Breaker Morant homelessness regional engagement social determinants of health abortion Youth Allowance Members suspension citizen engagement policymaking workplace health and safety Trafficking in Persons Report marine reserves hearing TAFE Victoria astronomy resources sector YMCA youth parliament alcohol Korea rebate Australian Greens presidential nomination Racial Discrimination Act entitlements political parties preselection solar hot water Financial Action Taskforce Horn of Africa peacekeeping piracy Great Barrier Reef Stronger futures political financing Hung Parliament political education social inclusion Social Inclusion Board maritime early childhood National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Murray-Darling Basin Iran sanctions Norway hospitals republic President Barack Obama Presidential visits ANZUS qantas counselling

Show all
Show less
Back to top