The prosecutor in the Assange case should be replaced
Marianne Ny has increasingly painted himself into a corner. Is it even possible to imagine that she, after completing interviews with Assange in London, concludes that the investigation should be closed down? writes former prosecutor Rolf Hillegren.
March 17, 2015 at 13:19, Updated: March 17, 2015 at 13:20 FOCUS | ASSANGE CASE
Rolf Hillegren
The prosecutor is solely responsible for the investigation is driven forward and his duty to be objective makes the task delicate.
Rolf Hillegren
On June 19, 2012 took Julian Assange refuge in Ecuador's embassy in London and on 16 August the same year he was granted political asylum in Ecuador. Since then, it should have been clear to most people except for the public prosecutor Marianne Ny Assange does not intend to voluntarily waive their asylum and go to Sweden where he since November 2010, detained in absentia for sexual offenses. The prosecutor has simply failed to act on the unique situation arisen with Assange's occupation of the embassy. She has consistently maintained that the only way to push the investigation forward is that Assange is available for questioning in Sweden.
The detention decision was appealed and the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2010. In conjunction with the new appeal in November 2014 the Court of Appeal found that Assange would remain in custody but claimed that the prosecutor's failure to consider alternative ways not consistent with the obligation to pursue the investigation forward. This was ignored by the prosecution despite stating that the issue is continuously considered.
Court of Appeal's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court and 10 March 2015 requested the HD to the Prosecutor-General's opinion on the matter and in particular with regard to investigations and proportionality.
Then the prosecutor has suddenly changed her mind and already March 13, 2015 decided that the hearing be held in London. By way of explanation, she stated that some of the crimes approaching limitation but adds that the investigation loss of quality of interrogations held in London. Apparently, she has overlooked that even protracted investigations have negative effects.
For me who has been a prosecutor and has years of experience of listening to dubious corrections and afterwards constructions appear Marianne Ny explanation for its change of position as unconvincing.
Her lack of action over the past few years can only be interpreted to mean that she harbored the prejudice that further questioning of Assange could only lead to his prosecution. But then, a prosecutor does not behave. [Uncertain what he is getting at. That prosecutor biased in the belief that questions would produce a prosecution? That only works if you actually believe that any of this is a genuine prosecution. In my view, that resurrected (originally dismissed investigation) and conspicuous Sweden delay, both serve to keep Assange (and WikiLeaks) 'on ice' while enabling the US authorities to mount their case and extradition of Assange to the US.]
As prosecutors must act completely unbiased manner and constantly be prepared for all eventualities. It is very common - particularly in sexual offense investigations - that the investigation is closed down on the grounds that crimes can not be substantiated. The possibility seems prosecutor to have completely disregarded in the Assange case. This is especially remarkable as proof mode is rather doubtful, as those who so wish can state when the previous study is available online.
If the prosecutor acted in the only way that was it reasonable, she should have questioned Assange as soon as possible in autumn 2012. The most likely scenario is that she then found reason to discontinue the examination on the grounds that crimes can not be substantiated. As it stands, there are many indications that Assange has so far spent over two and a half years at the embassy in vain.
The thing is that it was quite possible to interrogate him in London long before he went to the embassy. This is not good enough as some assert that "he must blame himself."
The prosecutor is solely responsible for the investigation is driven forward and his duty to be objective makes the task delicate. It is equally likely that an innocent being unfairly treated as a civil party, it will be if the investigation is not conducted expeditiously. [Not sure what he's saying beyond prosecutor's duty to be objective & push investigation forward. Bad translation. Maybe he's saying failure to conduct timely investigation = innocent party unfairly treated?]
Should the prosecutor, on the other hand, after questioning Noting that the prosecution shall be instituted had the problem persisted but the prosecutor's conduct would have seemed less culpable. Entirely unobjectionable, it had not been. I content myself here with a reminder that the matter quickly closed down by an experienced prosecutor in 2010 and I am convinced that the majority of the country's senior prosecutors would have done the same.
As the years have gone by the prosecutor's prestige and passivity made her increasingly painted himself into a corner from which no honorable way back there. Is it even possible to imagine that she, after completing interviews with Assange in London, concludes that the investigation should be closed down? What criticism would she suffer? And what criticism would be directed against the Prosecution?
Given that the prosecutor so far demonstrated a lack of objectivity and pushed the investigation in violation of their duties and the usual practice is an imminent risk of a hearing in London will lead to her against his better judgment and reasons of prestige finds that the prosecution should be brought. Should this happen, there is still the possibility that HD highlights arrest in view of the proportionality principle and the realization that Assange did not get to go to Sweden voluntarily.
If the arrest on the other hand is not lifted learn Assange will remain at the embassy and the timing of the overall scandal of the judiciary will be further postponed.
Ideally, Marianne Ny himself realized that she should leave the investigation and that it should continue to be handled by someone who is completely outside her command of marketing. Realizes she's not there should Prosecutor-General acting and refer the case to a new prosecutor - preferably one with high integrity. It is also strange that a överklagare, which in this case after the decision to reopen the investigation itself chooses to pursue it further. It is not usual. [överklagare could = 'over complainer' ... but I don't know what is meant by that. Supervisor? Maybe a supervisor. So he's saying: strange that a supervisor, after deciding to re-open the investigation, elects to pursue it further. Hillegren says: it is NOT USUAL.]
No matter how the case will be terminated, it is evident that the case is already qualifies as legal scandal. Through its actions, the prosecution has produced a situation that is far more serious than the crimes for which Assange is suspected. And because the case attracted international attention, she has not only drawn ridicule Prosecution but also disgraced the country - a feat that few suspects usually succeed.
ROLF HILLEGREN
EU-NATO IMPERIALISM ❌ 