4-1 decision means arrest warrant against WikiLeaks founder over claims of rape and sexual assault will not be lifted, but dissenting justice gives legal team hope

Sweden’s highest court has thrown out Julian Assange’s appeal against his arrest warrant, dashing his immediate hopes of an end to his three-year confinement in Ecuador’s embassy in London.



His lawyers were, however, encouraged by a 4-1 decision by the judges, which a senior legal figure said indicated the court could still change its mind.

The WikiLeaks founder is wanted for questioning in Sweden following allegations of sex crimes that date from August 2010. But without a guarantee he would not be extradited to the US to face espionage charges, he has refused to travel to Sweden and in 2012 sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy.

Stockholm’s supreme court said in its ruling on Monday: “The public interest in the investigation continues to weigh heavily. In view hereof, and the risk that Julian Assange may evade prosecution if the arrest warrant is lifted, continued detention is currently regarded as compatible with the principle of proportionality.”

Per Samuelson, a lawyer for the 43-year-old Australian, condemned what he called a weak decision by the court, which he said had issued its ruling before the Assange team had made its final submission.

But the split decision suggests that the supreme court’s position on proportionality is not set in stone, according to Anne Ramberg, the head of Sweden’s Bar Association. “The reasoning of the court indicates that it may take a different view with the passing of further time,” she said.

Claes Borgström, a lawyer for one of the complainants in the case, said he was very satisfied by the court’s decision, but was surprisedone judge had dissented. “If Assange was suspected of a theft or another minor crime, proportionality would be different, but he is suspected of rape, a very severe crime,” Borgström said.

An 11-month battle through Sweden’s courts has seen Assange’s lawyers argue that his exile in Ecuador’s embassy amounts to enforced and that the severe restrictions it places on his freedoms are disproportionate to the scale of the crimes of which he is accused. Lower courts in Sweden have objected that Assange’s confinement is self-imposed.

The supreme court backed the lower courts, stating that the fact of his residence in the embassy “cannot be given any importance in the assessment of proportionality … Julian Assange’s freedom of movement cannot be considered to be limited in practice in such a way that it is contrary to the European convention [on human rights]”.

The ruling does not include a legal explanation for this conclusion, which Samuelson said was “disappointing and annoying”.

Julian Assange: the fugitive Read more

But in an appendix to the ruling, Justice Svante Johansson issued a dissenting opinion in support of the appeal. The arrest warrant was “in violation of the principle of proportionality”, he said, and the reasons for continued detention did not “outweigh the intrusion and inconvenience” it caused Assange.

Assange’s lawyers said on Monday they would discuss their next steps. Previously they said they were prepared to take their case to the European court of human rights, where they maintain that legal thinking on proportionality speaks in their favour.

Swedish prosecutors are now preparing to travel to London to question Assange, after Stockholm’s appeal court in November was sharply critical of their failure to move the case forward. Assange has argued that the prosecutor’s repeated refusal to question him in London has condemned him to remain in legal limbo.

The supreme court also stated on Monday that the investigating authorities “must examine what alternative investigative opportunities are available to drive the investigation forward”. A spokesperson for Marianne Ny, the prosecutor in the case, said she was waiting for formalities to be completed before conducting the interrogation, which is a necessary step towards formal charges.

Although Assange has not yet been formally charged – a process that occurs relatively late in the legal process under Swedish jurisprudence – the prosecutor is obliged to drop the case unless there are reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Assange’s lawyers said on Monday they have the right to go though the entire legal process once again in the Swedish courts after the London interrogation has taken place, holding out the prospect of at least another year of legal wrangling.

In January, Sweden’s government agreed to examine whether it could issue a guarantee forbidding rendition of “any person under the control of the Swedish authorities while considered a refugee by a third country”. It is scheduled to issue a decision by 15 June.

As well as Johansson, the supreme court justices who ruled in the case were Ann-Christine Lindeblad, Gudmund Toijer, Ingemar Persson and Lars Edlund.











