Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
Do you have a link for that, as I'm not aware of any cases where this has happened. Also, do you know of any foreign countries have or have used similar laws.
|
Well this is us closing the Iranian embassy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15966628
This is the case of the only, known, use of the law in question:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=A...201987&f=false
To be honest it's rare someone would pull such a stunt so you can't expect the law to have been used much. It's only been around for a couple of decades or so.
Quote:
|
We could refuse on the grounds that the negative consequences would far outstrip the benefit of having Assange put on trial.
|
Is there such a prevision in the EU extradition treaty? We're obliged to arrest him and hand him over, we're not meant to judge the benefit of having him on trial. He isn't going to persecuted and his crime is a crime here so our judges found no reason to halt the request.
Quote:
|
Yes, but the rape claim is a little dodgy as well. If I recall correctly, he was first cleared and then the case was re-opened. I do think there is more to this than just the rape claim (or actually, I think it's a claim for assault: consensual sex without protection).
|
Again. The Swedish courts are the ones who decide his guilt or the strength of the case. When we sign these treaties we do so because we believe in the integrity of the countries' justice systems. If they, via their legal system, have issued such a request we have to abide by it.
Also it's not consensual sex without protection. The woman in question alleges she consented on the condition he wear protection, claims he didn't, therefore the consent wasn't granted. There is also a accusation of sex whilst half-asleep and using his body to apply force against her will.