Streams of WikiLeaks

WIKILEAKS - Court Summary of Feb 8, 2011 Events

5.55pm: Assange’s lawyer, Mark Stephens, has just made this statement about the Swedish prosecutor – who was the subject of much of the testimony heard today in court:

I challenge you Marianne Ny, come to London, come on Friday, subject yourself to the cross-examination of Geoffrey Robertson

Stephens said Ny had been ready to feed the media with stories but not to speak for herself in court.

Standing outside the court Assange made a similar point about the prosecutor’s absence from the hearing. He said:

It’s been a long day. What we have seen is process abuse after process abuse being revealed hour after hour.

What we have not seen yet is the Swedish prosecutor at these proceedings.

He also asked “Where is the equality?” and said the “unlimited budget of Sweden and the UK” had been on display in the case to extradite him.

5.30pm: An end-of-day summary:

• The hearing has over-run and will resume on Friday at 10.30am.

• Julian Assange’s Swedish lawyer, Björn Hurtig, admitted he had made a mistake when he said it was five weeks before Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny said she wanted to interview the WikiLeaks founder. He said texts he discovered yesterday showed it was three.

• Hurtig accused prosecutors of leaking details of the case to the media, specifically telling a Swedish newspaper Assange was suspected of rape.

• Sven-Erik Alhem, a retired Swedish prosecutor, said Ny should have allowed Assange to give his version of events before issuing an arrest warrant. He also said she should not have confirmed his name when it was put to her by the media.

• Clare Montgomery QC, representing the Swedish prosecutor, said Assange must have been aware of the intention to interview him. Alhem said Ny was not wrong to issue a European arrest warrant, but he would have sought to interview him in the UK first.

• Hurtig said Assange had been difficult to contact in mid to late September as he had gone into hiding, following what were described as “death threats” from some US politicians.

5.05pm: The court has now adjourned (Hurtig needed to catch a flight home). Closing arguments are set for 10.30am on Friday.

5pm: Robertson on the timing of Ny’s interview request:

Under cross-examination from Robertson, Hurtig has described his error on the date of the Swedish prosecutor’s request as “embarrassing”. He said he had made sure to mention it so his evidence was correct.

4.55pm: Montgomery has finished and now Robertson, Assange’s QC, returns to cross-examine Hurtig.

4.50pm: Montgomery and Hurtig are now disputing whether a DNA test was needed and whether it was necessary for Assange to be in Sweden if one was.

4.40pm: Hurtig (BH) admits he was mistaken when he said Ny had waited five weeks to interview Assange (JA) – he tells the court it was three:

He tells the court that he found the texts from Ny yesterday and is correcting the record today. He says he is busy and has many clients. (He has also said it is possible there were texts between him and Ny he can’t remember.)

4.35pm: Montgomery first asks Hurtig if he attempted to contact Assange on 27 September after he was told about the Swedish prosecutor’s intention to arrest him. He says he made attempts to contact him. She then asks if it was possible he flew out of Sweden that day after Hurtig told him about the possibility of arrest. Hurtig replies “No”. (Hurtig said the prosecutor has authorised Assange to leave Sweden in a phone conversation on 15 September.)

4.15pm: Back after the 10 minute break, Montgomery is asking Hurtig why he failed to contact Assange (JA) when Ny said she had wanted to speak to him:

Hurtig says that it is important to bear in mind that Assange was diffcult to get hold ofin mid to late September (see 2.50pm).

4.10pm: The judge is talking about extending the hearing to March, which means that it won’t finish today (Hurtig’s evidence is still continuing this afternoon).

3.57pm: The court has broken for 10 minutes to allow Hurtig to check his records.

3.55pm: Hurtig is now being cross-examined by Montgomery (representing the Swedish prosecutor). There is some dispute over the exact wording of a text from 22 September and she asks him to get his phone out and check the sent folder. He does, but says that his sent messages aren’t saved that far back. She then asks him to check two in his inbox from that time.

3.30pm: Hurtig’s summary of his contacts with Ny, some of which were by text message, has broadened out to some of the other details of the case. He says he had concluded the police were leaking plans to interview Assange to the press (which he describes as “appalling”) and that he had seen text messages from woman B where she describes herself as “half-asleep” when Assange began to have sex with her without a condom.

Hurtig says he thought carefully about coming to the Belmarsh hearing because of the confidential nature of this material.

2.50pm: Hurtig (BH) says Assange (JA) was at one point difficult to get hold of because he was in hiding following the pronouncements of some US politicians.

Assange’s lawyer is also disputing the date when he was told by Ny of her intention to prosecute.

2.35pm: The hearing has resumed after lunch with the continuation of testimony from Björn Hurtig, Assange’s Swedish lawyer. He is going through the chronology of his contacts with Marianne Ny, the Swedish prosecutor, under questioning from Assange QC Geoffrey Robertson.

1.40pm: Here is Esther Addley with a lunchtime audio report on the main event so far today, the appearance of defence witness Sven Erik Alhem, a retired Swedish prosecutor.

Here are the main points:

• Alhem said he had no interest in the case’s outcome, just that Swedish justice was done and seen to be done.

• He said Marianne Ny, the Swedish prosecutor, should not have confirmed Assange’s name when the media put it to her.

• He said Assange had not had the opportunity to put forward his side of the case before the arrest warrant was issued.

• Clare Montgomery QC, representing the Swedish prosecution, said Alhem only knew what he had been told by Assange’s lawyers and took him through Ny’s account of her attempts to interview Assange.

• He said based on his understanding of the case it was not wrong to issue a European arrest warrant against Assange, but he would have attempted to interview him in the UK first.

1.20pm: The court has broken for lunch. Shortly before, Robertson was running through Hurtig’s version of events – the court has already been told there are differences with Ny’s chronology.

Hurtig is told he can’t speak to anyone during the break.

1.15pm: Hurtig has said that within a couple of hours of the Assange allegations being made on 20 August, there were 2-3m search returns online linking the WikiLeaks founder to rape.

1.05pm: The next witness is Assange’s Swedish lawyer, Björn Hurtig (BH), who is being cross-examined by Geoffrey Robertson QC (GR) for the defence.

He is also questioned on the possibilty of public trials for rape defendents in Sweden. He says he acted for very high profile rape defendent in 2004-05 with much media attention. He says he asked for a public trial but was denied.

In answer to a further question, he says there is no way he can protect his client from prejudical media coverage.

12.35pm: After some short questioning, Alhem is discharged with thanks from the judge for “coming all this way”. The court then rises for a short break.

12.25pm: Alhem says he believes it would be impossible for Assange to be extradited from Sweden to the US without a media storm. He says he is speaking not as an expert in extradition law but as a social commentator.

He tells the judge he is tired because he has been up since 4am but wishes to continue because he is enjoying the atmosphere.

Jones, Assange’s junior counsel, will now return to questioning Alhem.

12.10pm: Montgomery asks Alhem to not give “long lectures” in his answers; Alhem replies that he will answer “in my way”. There is also an exchange on whether Ny was right to issue a European arrest warrant – see Esther Addley’s tweet below for the retired Swedish prosecutor’s answer:

Alhem though adds that he would have tried harder to interview Assange in the UK (see also 12pm).

12.00pm: Montgomery asks Alhem if he was the prosecutor in this case if he would have issued a European arrest warrant. Alhem says he would have detained Assangefrom the beginning.

He also says he would have interviewed Assange in the UK with a Swedish police officer present.

11.55am: Montgomery is reading from Ny’s statement a chronology of her attempts to interview Assange in September and October last year.

11.45am: Montgomery has told Mark Stephens’, Assange’s lawyer, to “sit down”.

11.40am: Under cross-examination from Montgomery, Alhem says of Assange that if he was “in his shoes” he would have gone to Sweden immediately to clear his name.

11.30am: Clare Montgomery, QC for the Crown, is now cross-examining Alhem.

11.15am: Alhem is taking questions on procedural issues in Swedish prosecutions. He says it is a “golden rule” that a suspect is allowed to know what he or she is accused of before a prosecution can be brought. He also says there is no reason why Assange could not be questioned in the UK.

11.05am: Alhem is being asked about the conduct of the Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny. He says it was “completely against proper procedure” for her to confirm Assange’s name to the media. He also queries the use of “accused” in the documents, saying “suspect” is a better word.

Earlier Alhem had said he had no interest in the outcome of the case. Only that “justice be done and be seen to be done”. He said he cannot be “bought for money” – a response to some critics in Sweden.

10.50am: The hearing has resumed. Assange’s junior counsel, John Jones, is questioning defence witness Sven Erik Alhem, a retired Swedish prosecutor (now legal commentator). Alhem says he was critical of the handling of the case before Assange’s lawyers contacted him.

10.25am: Esther Addley tweets the following:

You can follow all her tweets from Belmarsh at @estheraddley

10am: Day two of Julian Assange’s extradition hearing.

Assange and his legal team have arrived at Belmarsh magistrates’ court, and so too have his supporters. The hearing is scheduled to begin at 10.30am.

Yesterday, the defence and prosecuting QCs made their opening arguments. Assange’s QC, Geoffrey Robertson, said his client would not get a fair trial in Sweden and called on a witness, retired Swedish judge Brita Sundberg-Weitman, who said the Swedish prosecutor had “a rather biased view against men in the treatment of of sexual offence cases”.

Clare Montgomery QC, representing the Swedish prosecutor, said the allegations against Assange would be offences under English law and she should be extradited. She also said the Swedish prosecutor intends to prosecute. A key defence argument, made again yesterday, is that extradition cannot be for the purposes of questioning.

Tags: wikileaks assange