(This document was prepared 23 September, when prosecutor Marianne Ny submitted her response, but was not released until 25 September, two days later.)
SVEA COURT OF APPEALS
Presentation in Stockholm
Case Ö 8290-14
Appellate judge Niklas Wågnert, Monica Kämpe, peer, Torbjörn Widemar
PRESENTER AND KEEPER OF THE MINUTES
Appeals court jurist Gustaf Almkvist
Julian Assange, 19710703
Deprived of liberty: Detained in his absence
Ecuador’s embassy London
Flat 3B, 3 Hans Crescent
London SW1X 0NT
Counsel: Attorney Thomas Olsson
112 94 Stockholm
Counsel: Attorney Per E Samuelson
112 94 Stockholm
Chief prosecutor Marianne Ny and vice chief prosecutor Ingrid Isgren
Development Centre Göteborg resp. Southern prosecution office Stockholm
Detention; now a matter of oral hearings et al
Decision of Stockholm district court 2014-07-16 case B 12885-10
Julian Assange has, in conjunction with his appeal of the district court decision that he be continued detained in his absence, requested that the appeals court hold a hearing in the case, that the prosecutors submit a transcript of a certain SMS message, and that the appeals court should rule in the matter of translation of documents in the case that are not from the defence.
The prosecutors have submitted that there is no need for a hearing, and objected to submitting the above mentioned message.
The matter is addressed. The appeals court thereafter arrived at the following
DECISION (to be announced 2014-09-25)
1. The request to have hearings in the case is rejected.
2. The request that the prosecutors submit a transcript of a certain SMS message is rejected.
3. The request for translations of prosecutor documents and appeals court rulings is granted.
As the reason for asking the appeals court to hold oral hearings, Julian Assange has submitted partly that it’s difficult to put forth all arguments in writing, partly that certain SMS messages presented (but not shared) by the prosecutors at the remand hearing in Stockholm need to be presented again in the appeals court, and partly that he wishes to present a film about attitudes in the US towards him.
The starting point for an appeal to this court of whether a remand should be assessed is to use written documentation. Per chap 52 § 11 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, the appeals court may decide to hold interrogations with one party or another if such be deemed necessary for the case. In addition, the court can hold hearings in different situations or if otherwise seen as necessary.
It’s apparent from the documentation in this case that the prosecutors, for the portions of the hearings that took place behind closed doors, read aloud excerpts from SMS messages procured from the telephones of the complainants, and let the defence read those excerpts. According to what’s been made available, the contents of those SMS messages are described in protocols and petitions.
It is the opinion of the court that, with this in mind, there is no reason, regarding the SMS messages, to hold oral hearings in the appeals court. Nor have there been any reasons to deviate from the fundamental rule of using written documentation. The request of Julian Assange for oral hearings is therefore rejected.
It is the understanding of the appeals court that Julian Assange, if the prosecutors object to his request to submit a transcription of an SMS message, shall ask the appeals court to order the prosecutors to submit the message.
Julian Assange has, via his counsel, shared the contents of the SMS message in question. He has not given any reason for his request that the prosecutors submit the SMS message in written form. It is the opinion of the appeals court that there are no reasons to order the prosecutors to submit such a transcript. Julian Assange’s request is therefore rejected.
There is cause to have statements of the prosecutors and rulings of the appeals court translated.
This decision may not be appealed separately (chap 54 § 4 procedural code).
Julian Assange is granted the opportunity to respond to the position of the prosecutors (appendix 10) by 1 October 2014 11:00. The prosecutors will thereafter be granted the opportunity of a response before the appeals court shall rule on the case.
Protocol submitted /