It took a long time but the conclusion was inevitable. Julian Assange is to be extradited to Sweden, facing allegations of sexual crimes, if the latest attempt by his legal team does not produce a surprise. The U.K. Supreme Court’s decision is the only possible result of the long extradition process in the Assange case. The alternative, to reject the European Arrest Warrant issued by Swedish authorities, would have been a sign of distrust towards the Swedish legal system. Such a distrust would have been unreasonable.
Let me be very clear here. Sweden is a Rechtstaat. That doesn’t mean that Swedish legal institutions are infallible. No legal system is perfect. But if we look at the bigger picture, Sweden as a legal system is characterized by respect for justice, and for the rule of law. The Swedish court system is characterized by foreseeability, high quality, fairness and humanism. These are facts. Yet I know already this characterization may cause many readers to shake their heads in disbelief. This description fits poorly with the picture of the Swedish legal system that has dominated the debate since the allegations against Assange became known. On the contrary, the picture of Sweden’s legal system is that of lack of justice and corruption. This discrepancy between facts and image is a problem.
The problem for the state of Sweden is that the image of our legal system, as it has been portrayed by Assange’s team and its supporters, is deeply distorted. It’s a caricature. When influential people – such as filmmaker Michael Moore, feminist Naomi Wolff, journalist John Pilger and many, many others – launches attacks on the Swedish legal system against this caricature rather than facts it affects Sweden’s democratic reputation.
In many parts of the world the impression of Swedish law is today that spread by the Assange’s legal team. It is this side of the story that has dominated in the case so far, as representatives of the Swedish legal system and other Swedish legal experts have failed to provide a more accurate picture.
When I travel to other countries and meet lawyers interested in the Assange case (and they are many), I get asked the most incredible questions about my country’s legal system. Is it true that men are convicted of rape in Sweden on the sole basis of a woman’s allegations? Is it rape in Sweden when a condom breaks? Is it correct that Swedish judges contact the Justice Department before passing judgment in politically sensitive cases? Has the Swedish Prosecutor General had meetings with representatives of the American Embassy before the European Arrest Warrant in the Assange case was issued? Are judges in Swedish courts politically elected? Is it true that official Sweden is impregnated by feminist ideology and that Swedish public servants are taught that women never lie? Will the Swedish police put Assange directly on a plane to Guantanamo if he is sent here?
All of these issues reflect misconceptions about the Swedish legal system. The answer to every question is basically ”no”, even if a couple of the questions contain half-truths. Let me return to these later on. Before that, there is reason to recall what actually happened.
Assange, as a spokesperson for Wikileaks, came to Sweden 2010. Ironically, one of the reasons for the visit was the good reputation of Swedish law; Assange was here to investigate whether Wikileaks could benefit from the unique protection of information under our special constitutional laws of freedom of speech. During his stay in Sweden two events occurred, which led to the accusations against Assange for sexual assault of two women. Before Assange was interrogated, he left the country. He has since then refused to return to Sweden and it has taken almost two years to bring the issue of extradition finally decided by the English courts.
The decision by the Supreme Court means only that Assange will be transferred to Sweden for interrogation. It does not mean that Assange will be tried, or even prosecuted. It is entirely possible that the he is transferred to Sweden, questioned and then released if the Swedish authorities find that there are not sufficient grounds for prosecution. It is today impossible to assess how the case will unfold.
However, what we do know today is that Assange will receive fair treatment by the Swedish judicial system. Its legal institutions respect the rule of law. And yes, this also holds in cases of accusations of sexual offenses, where the Swedish Supreme Court as recently as a few years ago clearly pointed to the same high standard of proof applies in cases of suspected rape as with other crimes.
The other parts of the criticism against the Swedish legal system are largely based on myths and misconceptions. The Swedish criminal law framework with regard to sexual offenses is not different from most others. I will not be sentenced for rape if my condom breaks during a sexual act. However, I can be convicted of rape if I have sex with a sleeping or unconscious person, like in many other countries. The image of a bizarre Swedish criminal law in the area of sexual offences is false.
The Swedish judges who may judge Assange if he is brought to trial will not take orders from any government agencies, and will not be influenced by pressure from elsewhere. (The corruption level in the Swedish judiciary is extremely low.) We do have politically appointed lay persons as judges (similar to jurors) – which I am skeptical against – but they do not act as politicians in their judicial function and studies suggest that their political beliefs do not influence their judgments at all. And – no – Assange will not be placed on a CIA-chartered plane by the Swedish police as soon as he arrives at Stockholm airport Arlanda.
(See for a similar article in Swedish Assange behöver inte vara orolig.)
Juridikbloggen 
30 kommentarer
Comments feed for this article
maj 30, 2012 den 1:41 e m
Johan Tisell
Ja Mårten, i det mesta håller jag med dig, men är det inte litet väl lätt att döma i sexbrott enbart på målsägandes uppgifter och kanske ett kompisvittne vars enda iakttagelse var att ho minns att offret grät och berättade?
Och närheten mellan regering och de dömande känns olustig. Nu senast la Lambertz ett lagförslag om tvångsäktenskap med detaljerade straffsatser. Sedan kan han komma att döma om samma sak. Det borde finnas tillräckligt med kompetens i Sverige för att skilja mellan lagstiftning och dömande. Och varför har vi ingen författningsdomstol?
maj 30, 2012 den 3:58 e m
Ivan
Har du någon dom du kan referera till där detta var fallet?
maj 31, 2012 den 6:55 f m
MJ
T.ex:
NJA 1980 s.725, NJA 1991 s.83, NJA 1992 s.446, NJA 1993 s.68, NJA 1993 s.616.
Några friande i HD som belyser att underrätterna går ännu längre kan vi ta också:
NJA 1994 s.268 (Sexbrott mot spädbarn, mamman vittnade om att barnet skulle ha sagt saker, fällande i TR och HovR).
NJA 2005 s.712 (HD fäller på utsaga men friar för en åtalspunkt eftersom denna enligt utsagan ska ha ägt rum ”någon gång under 2003”, fällande på samtliga punkter i TR och HovR)
NJA 2009 s447 (Enbart utsaga styrker åtalet, teknisk bevisning talar emot utsagan, fällande i TR och HovR, friande i HD)
NJA 2010 s.671 (Enbart mycket torftig utsaga gott om motbevisning teknisk, medicinsk och muntlig, fällande i HovR)
Faktum är att om jag går in på en juridisk databas och söker på våldtäkt bland hovrättsdomarna, så lovar jag att de fem översta kommer bygga på målsäganden utsaga och vara fällande. Här är de:
RH 1989:122
RH 1989:135
RH 1989:154
RH 1989:162
RH 1989:132
Nu råkade min sökning ge resultat i omvänd kronologisk ordning, men testa själv.
juni 1, 2012 den 6:45 f m
Ung_åklagare
Vad gäller RH referaten du anger så finns ju inte bevisningen som åberopats beskriven i referaten så där kan man ju inte dra några slutsatser om vilken bevisning som åberopats. Inte ens inställningen anges ju. Lova inte saker du inte kan hålla.
Så jag skulle inte dra några slutsatser från de referat du pekar på, det kan stämma att det bara är målsägandens berättelse de grundas på, men det kan även vara fråga om erkända gärningar..
juni 4, 2012 den 6:50 f m
MJ
Ja de som inte vet hur man får tag i domar får fråga en jurist eller anpassa sökningen så att man bara får fullständiga referat.
juni 5, 2012 den 7:04 f m
Ung_åklagare
Tja, det kapitlet i rättsfall från Hovrätterna är betitlat ”Brottsrubricering, påföljd och skadestånd i mål om sexualbrott”. Det står ingenting om bevisningen i den fysiska versionen av RH 1989 heller.
De referat man hittar i själva RH-boken är likalydande med de referat man får i juridiska databaser. Med andra ord kan man inte dra några som helst slutsatser kring bevisningen med ledning av dem. Då får man beställa domarna och det säger du ju själv att du inte gjort.
Sedan är du ju mindre ärlig angående din sammanfattning av åtminstone ett av NJA fallen också. NJA 2010 s.671. Det åberopades gott om bevisning från åklagarsidan. Det var inte någon vidare bra bevisning. Men att säga att det enda som åberopades var målsägandens utsaga är ju felaktigt.
Sedan tycker jag nog utgången i HD i det fallet var riktig, han skulle frias med de beviskrav vi har. Men det är ju onödigt att ljuga om vad som hände i rättsprocessen.
juni 11, 2012 den 9:50 f m
MJ
Vad var det för gott om bevisning?
maj 30, 2012 den 4:07 e m
JO
Just beträffande att ett justitieråd deltar i en utredning så är väl det ändå bara en principsak att uppröras över även om det beträffande Lambertz må vara befogat i alla hänseenden.
För det första utgår ju utredning, som alla andra, från ett av regeringen utfärdat kommittédirektiv varvid utredningens ändamål klargörs. I det står t.ex. att läsa att utredaren ska ”överväga och föreslå åtgärder för att åstadkomma ett ytterligare stärkt skydd mot tvångsäktenskap och barnäktenskap”.
Så länge ett justitieråd är objektivt måste väl den anses vara högst lämpad att på samma sätt bedriva en objektiv utredning beträffande juridiska frågor med den kunskap personen redan besitter men även för fortbildningen.
Om regeringen sedan tänker lägga en proposition, vilket man kommer göra, kommer ju förslaget att gå ut på remiss och då har ju Sveriges domstolar, Åklagarmyndigheten och Advokatsamfundet m.fl. ändå rätt att yttra sig om lagtekniska frågor.
maj 30, 2012 den 3:14 e m
Bo
Inevitable conclusion?
Two Supreme Court judges were against the decision!
maj 31, 2012 den 7:19 f m
Johan Tjäder
Minoritetens åsikt är mycket besynnerlig. Den går ut på att det brittiska parlamentet bör ha varit mycket medvetet om skillnaden mellan ordens betydelse i EU-rätt och brittisk rätt, men ändå valt att uttrycka denna skillnad genom att använda exakt samma ordval. Kan man dissa det brittiska parlamentet på ett mer tydligt sätt?
Minoriteten bortser också från att det enligt svensk lag krävs ett häktningsbeslut för att få utfärda EAW. Det berör man inte ens, och det kan man ju förstå.
maj 31, 2012 den 9:12 f m
Bo
Så här sammanfattar Lady Hale:
”It is also quite clear from the parliamentary history detailed by Lord Mance that “judicial” was deliberately inserted into the Bill in order to limit the authorities who could issue European arrest warrants to bodies which we would recognise as judicial. In this respect, I would place more weight on the parliamentary history – in terms of the changes made to the Bill during its passage through Parliament – than on the assurances given by ministers. Why make the amendments eventually made unless to make the matter clear? As Lord Filkin said to the House of Lords (Hansard (HL Debates), 1 May 2003, col 858), Parliament is sovereign. This is not a case where Parliament has
told us that we must disregard or interpret away the intention of the legislation. I would therefore have allowed this appeal!
Och Lord Mance:
”In the result, I conclude that, whatever may be the meaning of the
Framework Decision as a matter of European law, the intention of Parliament and the effect of the Extradition Act 2003 was to restrict the recognition by British courts of incoming European arrest warrants to those issued by a judicial authorityin the strict sense of a court, judge or magistrate. It would follow from my conclusions that the arrest warrant issued by the Swedish Prosecution Authority is incapable of recognition in the United Kingdom under section 2(2) of the 2003
Act. Parliament could change the law in this respect and provide for wider ecognition if it wished, but that would of course be for it to debate and decide. I would therefore allow this appeal, and set aside the order for Mr Assange’s extradition to Sweden”
Man menar alltså att parlamentets avsikt var att begränsa rätten att utfärda EAW.
maj 31, 2012 den 4:35 e m
Johan Tjäder
Jo, Bo, men verkar det rimligt att parlamentet skulle välja att skilja på det ena och det andra genom att använda exakt samma begrepp? Det hade väl varit så mycket enklare att använda ordet ”court” då i så fall, om det var det man ville. Jag tycker inte minoriteten hanterar den aspekten.
maj 30, 2012 den 4:08 e m
JO
En sak jag slås av när jag som allra hastigast bläddrar igenom The Supreme Courts dom och läser kommentarer om den är att vissa har invändningar mot att inte domstolen fattar beslut om någon ska begäras utlämnad. Principiellt kan jag i och för sig hålla med men en förutsättning för att åklagaren ska kunna begära någon utlämnad är ju att denna är häktad på sannolika skäl av en svensk domstol först och då framstår ju vem som begär en person utlämnad som en administrativ teknikalitet i sammanhanget.
maj 30, 2012 den 8:36 e m
Johan Tjäder
Frågan om en åklagare kan utfärda en europeisk arresteringsorder var det som var föremål för prövning i Högsta domstolen. Så funkar det i många länder, så ett annat beslut hade satt Storbritannien i ett besvärligt läge. Hade förmodligen blivit en fråga för EU:s ministerråd.
Det man kan fråga sig om lagstiftaren inte borde ha varit mer observant på den frågan eftersom begreppet ”judicial authority” var omdiskuterat inför EU-beslutet.
maj 30, 2012 den 6:49 e m
Cesteten
Lustigt nog kom här en dom från HFD som bekräftar att the rule of law inte gäller i Sverige, i skatterätten iaf. Gör man något lagenligt så finns en lag som säger att det lagenliga var olagligt om syftet med det man gjorde var att slippa betala skatt. Rättssäkert?
Klicka för att komma åt 4799-10.pdf
maj 31, 2012 den 1:49 e m
Johan Tjäder
Det är inte lagligt att fly undan skatt. Det är inte konstigare än att det bara är lagligt att åka förbi ett trafikljus när det inte lyser rött.
juni 3, 2012 den 6:52 e m
Cesteten
Den jämförelsen håller inte. Det finns en lag som säger att det är förbjudet att köra mot rött. Det finns ingen lag som säger att det är förbjudet att köra mot grönt om syftet var att köra mot rött eller konsekvensen blev som att köra mot rött.
Skatteflyktslagen urholkar legalitetsprincipen. Om inte medborgarna litar på lagen kommer lagbrotten öka.
maj 30, 2012 den 8:41 e m
Johan Tjäder
Det jag undrar är om inte Assange-sidan självmant hade kunnat ta upp frågan om tolkning av Wien-konventionen. Den har ju funnits där hela tiden.
Mycket lustigt att man kan klanka på en HD-dom så där. Är det vanligt i utlandet? Nån som vet?
maj 31, 2012 den 12:14 e m
Cave Canem
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg:
”This is a very unusual thing. It’s not happened since this court was set up. It happened in the Pinochet case in the House of Lords. Very unusual, and means there’s everything left to play for still.”
He said that since Assange was not in court his lawyers had not been able to take instructions from him yet regarding what he wanted them to do. ”We’re waiting to see what he says. In the meantime he can stay in this country for at least two weeks, while they consider making this unprecedented application to reopen the case on the basis that it was decided on a point of law in the Vienna Convention on the Interpretation of Treaties that was simply not argued by either side and which the court gave no notice to either the Crown Prosecution Service, representing the Swedish authorities, or Mr Assange’s lawyers, that they were considering taking into account.”
Rozenberg added:
”It would be very embarrassing if the supreme court felt the need to reopen the case and it’s extraordinary, isn’t it, that they might have considered something which they gave the parties no opportunity to argue. From time to time judges do their research and they add points, minor points, that have not been considered, but it appears that the decisive point in this case was one that wasn’t argued, and that’s something which is pretty unusual, and that’s what prompted this unexpected intervention from Dinah Rose which took Lord Phillips so much by surprise that he mixed her up with the other counsel, Clare Montgomery.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/may/30/julian-assange-extradition-verdict-live-coverage
maj 30, 2012 den 9:22 e m
JohJoh
”The Swedish judges who may judge Assange […] will not be influenced by pressure from elsewhere”
I find your ability to see into the future amazing. ;P
”Assange will not be placed on a CIA-chartered plane by the Swedish police as soon as he arrives at Stockholm airport Arlanda.”
The reason for this discssion is that this happened before when to Egyptians were sent on a CIA-plane to Egypt where they were subjected to torture. No person have been held responsible for this shameful un-lawful event.
maj 31, 2012 den 7:02 f m
MJ
The question second to last and the question before that should also be answered yes.
Lay judges (the majority of judges) are politically elected, and jurist judges are appointed by the government.
maj 31, 2012 den 9:55 f m
Bo
I think that the fundamental issue at stake here is that the Swedish consitution is based on the principle of popular sovereignity, whereas the UK is based on the principle of division of power and fundamental rights.
An extradiction to another cournty can be an infringement to fundamental rights and must therefore a) be a limitation properly expressed by law and b) be subject to checks an balances
This is why the case has been taken bu the UK Supreme Court, which probably never would have happend in Sweden. Many Swedish jurists do not even understand the question.
maj 31, 2012 den 4:52 e m
MJ
Most Swedish jurists doesnt even know that the Swedish constitution isnt based on the principle of division of powers. When Montesque was rising in popularity in 90´s Swedish jurists just jumped on the train and started claiming his principles to be constitutional grounds in Sweden.
maj 31, 2012 den 8:16 e m
uniktnamn
@MJ
So how do you propose we appoint judges then? Is there some country in the whole world where the judges aren’t politically elected or appointed by the gouvernment?
@Bo
I’m not an expert, but the UK doesn’t really have a consitution, and it’s not based around division of power. The swedish and brittish systems are rather similar and both based around a ”sovereign” parlament as far as I know. (This is ofcourse simplified, but I dont see what’s supposed to be the division of power in the UK, and they dont really have much of fundamental rights.)
juni 3, 2012 den 1:45 e m
MJ
@uniktnamn
Just as we appoint anyone that work in any authority.
juni 3, 2012 den 7:26 e m
JTS
The fundamental question is whether the UK have incorparated the EU regulations correctly or not, the question is not concerning the Swedish constitution. Two Law Lords came the conclusion that the UK hasn’t managed to that correctly and the legal reasons for that conclusion is quite vague, in my humble opinion.
Regarding the UK constitution, when I studied law there some ten years ago, I was tought that they don’t have a constitution. The safe guard against abuse of parliamentary power was that no act of parliament comes in to effect before its signed and approved by the sovereign (i.e. the queen). Or have they enacted a constitution in the last years?
juni 4, 2012 den 9:45 f m
Bo
UK has no single constitution, but this does not mean there is none.
Magna Charta of the year 1297, clause 29 on the right for due pocess is still in force today: ”NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”
Bill of Rights from 1689 on the division of power between the king and the parliament.
maj 31, 2012 den 8:19 e m
Kalle
Riktigt bra skrivet, hoppas du får många läsare!
juni 8, 2012 den 5:18 e m
Dan
prof. Shultz far mothugg i svd
http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/visst-har-assange-fog-for-sin-oro_7261597.svd
juni 20, 2012 den 11:02 f m
diastra
Excuse me for being curious but then is it true that while prostitution in Sweden is legal, it is illegal to use the services of a prostitute?
Or the other one I’ve heard, that you may only own half a meter down in the ground of any land you own?
Or that it is illegal to repaint a house without a painting license from the government?
Or that it’s illegal to own or use metal detectors in Sweden?
Because if only these above are true, than excuse me, but I find your law-making very bizarre for an European country and I can see why people would do their best to avoid being judged in a court in your contry…with all due respect.