SVEA COURT OF APPEAL SUBMISSION
Case Ö 8290-14
Julian Assange ./. Söderort Prosecution Authority in Stockholm
We continue to oppose the request that the court of appeal shall rescind the decision for detention of Julian Assange.
We have been asked to submit statements on two aspects. Our responses are further developed under ‘Grounds’.
1. We oppose the injunction that we submit the documents containing the SMS traffic to Julian Assange or the court of appeal.
2. We see no reason for the court of appeal to obtain a preliminary ruling from the European Court regarding interpretation of article 7 of directive 2012/13/EU of the European parliament and the European council dated 22 May 2012.
The defence attorneys have, when requested, been given access to the SMS traffic in question. The messages have been made available to the defence in a way that is in direct accordance with the formulation of article 7 of the directive 2012/13/EU. The defence attorneys have been given access to the documents which contain the SMS traffic of the complainants by letting them read these documents at the police station. The most recent occasion this happened was on 15 July 2014, and for two hours. To make it easier for the attorneys to cite those portions they deemed relevant, they were given copies of the documents during the oral proceedings. So it is not true that they’ve only been given the opportunity to analyse and study them during the current detention hearings. The SMS traffic that’s relevant for judging probable cause has been accounted in the supplements to the district court. Together with the written materials the court of appeal already has, they constitute in our opinion a sufficient documentation to judge probable cause.
As previously stated, the defence have also had access to the detention memo which was collated for the detention hearing of 18 November 2010.
We still maintain (compare our statement to the district court 1 July 2014) that the duty to inform according to chap 24 § 9a in the trial code pertains only to the duty of the prosecutor to reveal the circumstances that are the basis of a deprivation of liberty for the suspect. We have, by supplying written documents to Julian Assange’s defence attorneys, and by letting them look at the SMS traffic in a police station, fulfilled the requirements of article 7 of the directive. The reason we oppose the release of copies of the documents with the SMS traffic is found in our response to the court of appeal dated 23 September 2014.
Preliminary ruling from the European Court?
Article 7 says that documents held by the authorities which concern the case in question and which are vital, in accordance with national law, for effectively challenging the legality of the arrest or the detention, shall be made available for the suspect deprived of liberty. In the preparatory work for chap 24 § 9a of the trial code, it’s mentioned that the materials that are the basis of the deprivation of liberty shall be made available to the suspect. Julian Assange is not per se deprived of liberty but has as explained above been given access to materials from the investigation that give him the opportunity to challenge the detention decision. Therefore in our opinion there is no reason to request a preliminary ruling from the European Court.
We agree that for now there’s a temporary obstacle to execution, but this in itself does not constitute an obstacle to a decision on continued detention. We have otherwise nothing to add, but refer to our response to the district court dated 1 July 2014 and our response to the court of appeal dated 23 September 2014.