Om författaren
Pensionerad lagman och docent i civilrätt och folkrätt. Författare till bland annat "Saklighet och godtycke i rättskipning och förvaltning" 1981, "Rättsstaten Åter!" 1985 och "Sverige och rättsstaten på 2000-talet"
Med anledning av det pågående förfarandet i London om överlämnande av Julian Assange har såväl statsministern, Fredrik Reinfeldt, som riksåklagaren, Anders Perklev, offentligt uttalat sig på ett sätt som leder tankarna till "Bagdad Bob", irakisk informationsminister 2003.
Reinfeldt: "Självständigt rättsväsende utan politiskt inflytande".
Enligt Reinfeldt har Sverige ett självständigt rättsväsende och är ett välfungerande rättssamhälle utan politiskt inflytande. I brottmål består tingsrätt av en professionell domare och tre, i praktiken politiskt nominerade, lekmän. I hovrätt deltar tre lagfarna domare och två politiskt nominerade lekmän, vilket bl a betyder att om de två nämndemännen får med sig en av de professionella domarna, blir den meningen avgörande för hovrättsdomen.
I förordningarna med tingsrätts- respektive hovrättsinstruktion finns en kryptisk bestämmelse om att lagmannen respektive presidenten bör delta när ett mål eller ärende avgörs, "om det finns särskilda skäl för det med hänsyn till målets eller ärendets art". Den bestämmelsen tolkas i praxis så att domstolschefen bör delta i mål som särskilt bevakas av medierna. Det är en besynnerlig ordning. Varför ska mål som medierna uppmärksammar särbehandlas? Varför är de ordinarie rådmännen inte betrodda? Domstolschefen brukar vara den ordinarie domare vid domstolen som har minst erfarenhet av rättskipning. Arbete i kanslihuset eller eljest på politiska villkor är ofta den avgörande meriten för tjänst som domstolschef. Den som arbetat länge på politiska villkor får förstås näsa för vad som är opportunt. Är det det som är förklaringen?
Beträffande särskilt arresteringsordern gentemot Assange föreskriver grundlagen att utrikesministern ska hållas underrättad, när en fråga som är av betydelse för förhållandet till en annan stat uppkommer hos en statlig myndighet (10 kap 8 §, numera 13 § regeringsformen). Bestämmelsen kommenteras i förarbetena så att utrikesministern måste få " en reell möjlighet att orientera myndigheten om sakens urikespolitiska sida." (Prop 1973:902 sid 370 f.)
Så har vi de individuella domarlönerna. En domstols administrativa chef bestämmer numera lönerna för domstolens domare. Det är en ordning som länge stått på Domstolsverkets önskelista och som numera realiserats. Därmed har man kört över 1993 års domarutredning som tog avstånd från tanken att tillämpa individuell lönestättning för domare: "En ordinarie domare bör inte bli föremål för en sådan löpande betygssättning av förman som påverkar lönen.
Om domaren för att få högre lön skall betygsättas som skicklig kan det hända att han omedvetet rättar sig efter vad kollegor och chefer tycker och inte sitt eget omdöme i den dömande verksamhete. En skicklig domare som arbetar långsammare men säkrare än andra kan komma i kläm i något slags produktivitetsresonemang . Sammanfattningsvis är det tveksamt hur man skall kunna löpande bedöma skicklighet och samtidigt behålla ett självständigt dömande." (SOU 1994:99 sid 266, min fetning) Nyordningen gör att man, drastiskt uttryckt, kan indela vårt lands rådmän i smilfinkar och hunsade.
Perklev: "Absolut plikt att fullfölja en brottsutredning".
Kritik mot överåklagaren Marianne Nys agerande i Assangeärendet kommenterar Perklev med att framhålla att enligt svensk rätt gäller absolut åtalsplikt. Det innebär enligt honom att en åklagare i princip är skyldig att så långt det är möjligt fullfölja en brottsutredning, "Marianne Ny har alltså agerat helt i enlighet med sin roll som allmän åklagare".
Så det skulle inte ha funnits något val? Hur går det ihop med den här bestämmelsen: "En svensk arresteringsorder får utfärdas endast om det med beaktande av det men för den enskilde samt den tidsutdräkt och de kostnader som kan antas uppkomma i ärendet framstår som motiverat med hänsyn till brottets art och svårhetsgrad samt övriga omständigheter." (5 § förordning 2003:1178) En likalydande paragraf i förordning om begäran om utlämnande till Sverige för brott kommenteras på regeringens hemsida så att " en skälighetsbedömning ska ske i samtliga fall där Sverige begär utlämning för brott".
Ur Åklagarmyndighetens "Handbok Överlämnande enligt europeisk arresteringsorder: "Vid tveksamhet om en arresteringsorder bör utfärdas bör rättsavdelningen vid riksåklagarens kansli kontaktas för samråd" (sid 25) Marianne Ny kan således förutsättas ha samrått med riksåklagarämbetet innan hon utfärdade arresteringsordern mot Assange, och Perklevs kommuniké framstår då snarare som blå dunster i en partsutsaga för egen del än som en förmans uttalande till försvar för en underordnad. Enligt den ovan berörda grundlagsregeln kan Perklev förutsättas ha lämnat utrikesministern tillfälle att ge synpunkter.
Trackback URL: http://www.newsmill.se/trackback/33743
Intressant artikel
Får tankar på hur det går till i förvaltningsdomstolarna .
Är det smilfinkarna som inte vågar gå emot försäkringskassan?
Permalänk | Anmäl
Maj-Britt HAGMAN, 2011-03-07, 15:27
Min stora aktnining till dig som vågar gå emot etablissemanget och kritisera brister i vårt rättssystem. Tack!
Du och Inga-Britt Ahlenius är berömvärda med ert mod och er vilja att driva obekväma sanningar upp i ljuset.
Tänk om fler, både män och kvinnor var lika starka och jobbade för sanningen i stf att bara vara ute efter att skydda sitt eget skinn.
Permalänk | Anmäl
Christina Lundqvist, 2011-03-07, 15:38
Redan från allra första början verkar den här historien ha processats politiskt - och då har jag inte den ringaste tanke på Assange.
Men Bagdad Bob! Det var extra tänkvärt! Tja, jag skall verkligen läsa artikeln åtminstone en gång till.
Permalänk | Anmäl
Stig Bergman, 2011-03-07, 15:55
"There is no doubt in my mind that Brita Sundberg-Weitman has had a very distinguished career as a judge and as a jurist. In her time she was no doubt a highly respected expert on many aspects of Swedish criminal law. She had taken a particular interest in European law, and in civil rights. She clearly now finds herself out of sympathy with the Swedish judicial system. She believes it to be unfair. It is perhaps unfortunate that in her report she did not mention that her opinions are not universally accepted. Similarly, one might have expected a clearer statement in her report that some of her evidence was based on what she had been told by defence lawyers, as opposed to independent sources, although she readily revealed that in cross-examination. Nevertheless I was very grateful to her for attending court to give evidence."
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sw...
Permalänk | Anmäl
John Billing, 2011-03-07, 15:58
The basis of my conclusions
It is not true that I based my conclusions on what I had been told by defence lawyers. Ms Nye has herself confirmed that she could have interrogated Mr Assange whilst he was still in Sweden. Her motivation for not doing so was that she wanted to interrogate all the witnesses before she heard Mr Assange's side of the story. In my view this delay was unreasonable, since Mr Assange was only temporarily in Sweden. However, since she did not question him before he left Sweden, she should in my view have accepted his offer to be interrogated in England. Under the Code of Judicial Procedure ”(t)he investigation should be conducted so that no person is unnecessarily exposed to suspicion, or put to unnecessary cost or inconvenience.” (Chapter 23 Section 4) Issuing a EAW was bound to cause Mr Assange and his work a maximum of harm, as could eaisly be predicted.
- - -
Om man vill bilda sig en uppfattning om en ämbetsmans objektivitet är det kanske bättre att granska vederbörandes gärningar i tjänsten och offentliga uttalanden än att sätta sig i hans/hennes knä.
Permalänk | Anmäl
Brita Sundberg-Weitman, 2011-03-07, 16:26
"The witness was further cross-examined about the authority to issue the EAW. Again she had difficulty directly answering the question. However she did eventually say that if the decision to prosecute has been made then Ms Ny is entitled to issue the EAW. She then referred to the decision to prosecute, for which the Swedish is “Atalsbeslut”. When pressed as to the decision to issue an arrest warrant and what it involves she said: “I may be wrong”. When further matters about the EAW and the framework decision were put to her she said “I am clueless. I don’t know. I have no firm opinion. [as to the points that must be reached before a prosecutor issues an EAW for the purpose of prosecution].”"
"The main criticism comes from the Swedish judge, Brita Sundberg-Weitman. She does not know Ms Ny. She bases her opinion on what she has been told by this defendant’s lawyers and articles she had read in the press. In fact she produced comparatively little evidence to support her strong criticism of Ms Ny. I refer briefly to that part of her evidence at page 3 above. Moreover she confirmed that she had no direct personal knowledge of what had happened in the investigation. Her evidence is based upon facts supplied to her by the defence lawyers. Mr Hurtig denied telling her that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He has never met her. There is therefore no clear evidence as to the source of the information on which Brita Sundberg-Weitman formed her opinion. One probable explanation is that Mr Assange’s London lawyers provided her with material they had in turn received from Mr Hurtig. However there are other explanations and the evidence is simply unclear on this point."
Permalänk | Anmäl
John Billing, 2011-03-07, 16:53
"She was then asked what material she has to justify the conclusion that Ms Ny “is a well-known radical feminist”. She did not produce any further evidence to substantiate that conclusion and thought it was well known."
OMFG!
Permalänk | Anmäl
John Billing, 2011-03-07, 17:02
John Billing: Riddle's skrivningar kan kritiseras på flera punkter. Han tycks t ex inte ha uppfattat att "bail" inte existerar utanför de anglosachsiska rättssystemen, vilket han borde veta som domare i mål om utlämnande och överlämnande. Här några punkter i mitt bemötande:
Precense of the defence in the Court of Appeal
(page 3: the witness at first appeared to say the defence were not represented in the Court of Appeal but later she said, after being referred to the decision of the court, that this document says Mr Hurtig was present, but she doesn't think he was) My comment: It appears clearly from the protocol of Svea Court of Appeal that Hurtig was not present. There was no hearing in the Svea Court of Appeal. The case was presented by an official of the Court.
Bail
(page 3: She was asked direct questions as to whether the court would decide whether this defendant should be on bail, if returned to Sweden. At first she appeared to avoid the question but did say that this is a matter for the court, with a right to appeal if bail is refused). My comment: There is no bail option in the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, so I cannot have said that ”this is a matter for the court” or that there is ”a right to appeal if bail is refused”
Ms Ny's idea of reasons to have a man locked up
(page 3: She was taken through the early paragraphs and accepted that there was nothing really wrong with what was said there) My comment: I probably did not have enough presence of mind to answer the question properly. However, what is really wrong with Ms Ny's statement - that a man ought to be detained in order to let the woman have the peace to consider whether or not she has been mistreated – is that this is not a legitimate reason to put a person in prison! (Legitimate grounds: risk of abscondense, risk of collution, risk of continued criminality)
Principle of proportionality
Judge Riddle states that he is ”not in a position to say what the reason was” why Mr Ny rejected Mr Assange's offers to be interrogated in England”. Obviously because she has never devulged what her reason was! That is why I said that her refusal ”looks malicious”. It strikes me that whereas Judge Riddle is rash to draw the conclusion that it ”cannot have slipped (Mr Hurtig's) mind” what efforts he made to contact his client between 21st, 22nd and 29th September, Judge Riddle is content that Ms Ny has refused to state her reasons for issuing a EAW instead of accepting Mr Assange's offers to be interrogated in England.
As stated in the decision by the High Court in December, what Mr Assange did ”is not the conduct of a person who is seeking to evade justice." When inteviewed in the media Ms Ny has given the following reason for not accepting Mr Assange's offer to be questioned in England: ”It would not be consistent with Swedish law.” This is simply not true.
The principle of proportionality will lack all sense if you accept that a state authority is not under an obligation to divulge its reasons for limiting a person's freedom!
Permalänk | Anmäl
Brita Sundberg-Weitman, 2011-03-07, 17:27
Det är ganska klart att det är en rent politisk utlämmning och att det inte har något med svensk rättspraxis att göra, vilket avskrivandet hos första åklagaren tydligt visar.
Vi har ett rättshaveri i landet och det vore bra om vi kunde få ett mer självständigt rättsväsende som inte var politiskt styrt i enskilda fall som det är i fallet Assange enligt de flesta som ser en aning objektivt på historien.
Vill man bara höra Assange så är det enkelt att skicka ner en polis eller helt enkelt låta brittisk polis förhöra honom.
Hela historien blir absurd och uppenbart helt politiskt konstruerad. Väldigt stora kostnader för svenska skattebetalare blir det också för den här politiskt styrda rättsfarsen.
Permalänk | Anmäl
Mikael Forsberg, 2011-03-07, 18:38
Judge Howard Riddle, in assessing the relevance of the witness-statements of Brita Sundberg-Weitman, might have missed the main relevant, and for the case only determinant point of such witness statement.
For it are her professional and academic experiences, and her expertise-knowledge on the Swedish judiciary and legal-system, what makes the witnessing of Sundberg-Weitman valuable in the reviewing of the publicly known procedures performed by Marianne Ny as prosecutor in the case Assange.
Ultimately, it was about an expertise assessment from the part of Associate Professor and former Judge Sundberg-Weitman as to which extent are the public professional doings of Marianne Ny (her public activities as prosecutor, or her statements in commenting legal issues, lecturing, etc.) congruent with Swedish judiciary and legal praxis.
Therefore, the question eventually to rise - if any - by Howard Riddle or Clare Montgomery with regard to the quality of her testimony, would have instead had emphasis on how well, or under which professional position or circumstances Brita Sundberg-Weitman is expertise-informed about the judiciary and legal praxis of Sweden. Nothing more.
Likewise, whether Sundberg-Weitman was personally acquainted with Marianne Ny, or how much she was directly involved with the case itself is downright irrelevant. And the fact that she was NOT could hardly speak against the objectivity of her testimony.
Quite at the contrary, if the witness would have had a personal or close professional acquaintance with Prosecutor Ny, then her witness-report would have been scrutinized from the view as to whether that close relationship would have bias her statements.
If I may protract the issue a bid further (just an argument of logics, not juridical): Do consider that neither Howard Riddle has ever worked close to the case or have had a personal or close knowledge of the procedures done by Ny in the case (the argumentation used to “disqualify” the witness). At the moment of the Court proceedings, all the cards shown, Judge Sundberg-Weitman knew as much or as little as Judge Riddle on the issue “personal or close knowledge of the procedures”. Yet he passes judgment ad-hominem against all her testimony exclusively based on that matter. Which, as I said above it was not even the point with her witnessing.
More in my "Comments on Judge Riddle's verdict & Lawyer. . ." at http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.com/2011/02/coments-on-judge-riddles-vedric...
Marcello Ferrada-Noli
Permalänk | Anmäl
Marcello Ferrada-Noli, 2011-03-07, 20:03
Intressant artikel. Tack för att du delar med dig av dina kunskaper.
Permalänk | Anmäl
Martin A, 2011-03-07, 22:32
Jag har förgäves försökt länka min blogg till Brita Sundberg-Weitmans artikel. Jag hoppas att det ska gå bättre att hänvisa till bloggen i kommentarspalten.
http://torsten-torstensblogg.blogspot.com/
Text: måndagen den 7 mars 2011
Permalänk | Anmäl
Torsten Bjerkén, 2011-03-10, 13:50
Tack Brita,
det var klargörande att åklagare Marianne Ny bör ha fattat beslutet om internationell efterlysning tillsammans med utrikesminister Bildt och riksåklagaren Perklev. Oroande är att statsminister Reinfeldt - landets starkaste opinionsbildare - tog parti i det pågående rättsärendet med patriotiska och feministiska tongångar. Tydligt är också att en kedja av socialdemokrater samarbetat för att sätta fast Julian Assange. Jakten på WikiLeaks grundare går ovanför partipolitiken.
Vi lever i ett paradigmskifte där Assange är historisk. Ny teknologi gör att makthavare kan räkna med att hemligt fuffens avslöjas.
För Sveriges del har pinsamma förehavanden hos både socialdemokrater och moderater redan röjts av WikiLeaks. Och mer kan komma fram. Detsamma sker i andra länder. Därav etablissemangens avsky för WL-grundaren.
Beträffande de två svenskornas anklagelser mot Julian Assange:
Helene Bergman, legendarisk feminist på SR, konstaterar att han verkar vara ”en vanlig man i sängen” (Newmill 2011-02-11). Jag instämmer efter att ha läst polisens häktningspromemoria.
Tror inte att de båda målsägarna ursprungligen ingick i någon komplott. Det kan uppstå missförståelse när man har sexumgänge utan att ha lärt känna varandra och kommer från olika länder.
Nu är de två svenskorna indragna i ett skenande maskineri som kan knäcka Assange genom mediamord och legala processer. Jag skulle råda kvinnorna att dra tillbaka sina anmälningar och bearbeta sina besvikelser på annat sätt.
Permalänk | Anmäl
Rigmor Robért, 2011-03-10, 23:21
14 kommentarer Logga in för att kommentera
I kommentarsfältet har kommentatorn juridiskt ansvar för sina inlägg.
Intressant artikel
Får tankar på hur det går till i förvaltningsdomstolarna .
Är det smilfinkarna som inte vågar gå emot försäkringskassan?
Min stora aktnining till dig som vågar gå emot etablissemanget och kritisera brister i vårt rättssystem. Tack!
Du och Inga-Britt Ahlenius är berömvärda med ert mod och er vilja att driva obekväma sanningar upp i ljuset.
Tänk om fler, både män och kvinnor var lika starka och jobbade för sanningen i stf att bara vara ute efter att skydda sitt eget skinn.
Redan från allra första början verkar den här historien ha processats politiskt - och då har jag inte den ringaste tanke på Assange.
Men Bagdad Bob! Det var extra tänkvärt! Tja, jag skall verkligen läsa artikeln åtminstone en gång till.
"There is no doubt in my mind that Brita Sundberg-Weitman has had a very distinguished career as a judge and as a jurist. In her time she was no doubt a highly respected expert on many aspects of Swedish criminal law. She had taken a particular interest in European law, and in civil rights. She clearly now finds herself out of sympathy with the Swedish judicial system. She believes it to be unfair. It is perhaps unfortunate that in her report she did not mention that her opinions are not universally accepted. Similarly, one might have expected a clearer statement in her report that some of her evidence was based on what she had been told by defence lawyers, as opposed to independent sources, although she readily revealed that in cross-examination. Nevertheless I was very grateful to her for attending court to give evidence."
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sw...
The basis of my conclusions
It is not true that I based my conclusions on what I had been told by defence lawyers. Ms Nye has herself confirmed that she could have interrogated Mr Assange whilst he was still in Sweden. Her motivation for not doing so was that she wanted to interrogate all the witnesses before she heard Mr Assange's side of the story. In my view this delay was unreasonable, since Mr Assange was only temporarily in Sweden. However, since she did not question him before he left Sweden, she should in my view have accepted his offer to be interrogated in England. Under the Code of Judicial Procedure ”(t)he investigation should be conducted so that no person is unnecessarily exposed to suspicion, or put to unnecessary cost or inconvenience.” (Chapter 23 Section 4) Issuing a EAW was bound to cause Mr Assange and his work a maximum of harm, as could eaisly be predicted.
- - -
Om man vill bilda sig en uppfattning om en ämbetsmans objektivitet är det kanske bättre att granska vederbörandes gärningar i tjänsten och offentliga uttalanden än att sätta sig i hans/hennes knä.
"The witness was further cross-examined about the authority to issue the EAW. Again she had difficulty directly answering the question. However she did eventually say that if the decision to prosecute has been made then Ms Ny is entitled to issue the EAW. She then referred to the decision to prosecute, for which the Swedish is “Atalsbeslut”. When pressed as to the decision to issue an arrest warrant and what it involves she said: “I may be wrong”. When further matters about the EAW and the framework decision were put to her she said “I am clueless. I don’t know. I have no firm opinion. [as to the points that must be reached before a prosecutor issues an EAW for the purpose of prosecution].”"
"The main criticism comes from the Swedish judge, Brita Sundberg-Weitman. She does not know Ms Ny. She bases her opinion on what she has been told by this defendant’s lawyers and articles she had read in the press. In fact she produced comparatively little evidence to support her strong criticism of Ms Ny. I refer briefly to that part of her evidence at page 3 above. Moreover she confirmed that she had no direct personal knowledge of what had happened in the investigation. Her evidence is based upon facts supplied to her by the defence lawyers. Mr Hurtig denied telling her that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He has never met her. There is therefore no clear evidence as to the source of the information on which Brita Sundberg-Weitman formed her opinion. One probable explanation is that Mr Assange’s London lawyers provided her with material they had in turn received from Mr Hurtig. However there are other explanations and the evidence is simply unclear on this point."
"She was then asked what material she has to justify the conclusion that Ms Ny “is a well-known radical feminist”. She did not produce any further evidence to substantiate that conclusion and thought it was well known."
OMFG!
John Billing: Riddle's skrivningar kan kritiseras på flera punkter. Han tycks t ex inte ha uppfattat att "bail" inte existerar utanför de anglosachsiska rättssystemen, vilket han borde veta som domare i mål om utlämnande och överlämnande. Här några punkter i mitt bemötande:
Precense of the defence in the Court of Appeal
(page 3: the witness at first appeared to say the defence were not represented in the Court of Appeal but later she said, after being referred to the decision of the court, that this document says Mr Hurtig was present, but she doesn't think he was) My comment: It appears clearly from the protocol of Svea Court of Appeal that Hurtig was not present. There was no hearing in the Svea Court of Appeal. The case was presented by an official of the Court.
Bail
(page 3: She was asked direct questions as to whether the court would decide whether this defendant should be on bail, if returned to Sweden. At first she appeared to avoid the question but did say that this is a matter for the court, with a right to appeal if bail is refused). My comment: There is no bail option in the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, so I cannot have said that ”this is a matter for the court” or that there is ”a right to appeal if bail is refused”
Ms Ny's idea of reasons to have a man locked up
(page 3: She was taken through the early paragraphs and accepted that there was nothing really wrong with what was said there) My comment: I probably did not have enough presence of mind to answer the question properly. However, what is really wrong with Ms Ny's statement - that a man ought to be detained in order to let the woman have the peace to consider whether or not she has been mistreated – is that this is not a legitimate reason to put a person in prison! (Legitimate grounds: risk of abscondense, risk of collution, risk of continued criminality)
Principle of proportionality
Judge Riddle states that he is ”not in a position to say what the reason was” why Mr Ny rejected Mr Assange's offers to be interrogated in England”. Obviously because she has never devulged what her reason was! That is why I said that her refusal ”looks malicious”. It strikes me that whereas Judge Riddle is rash to draw the conclusion that it ”cannot have slipped (Mr Hurtig's) mind” what efforts he made to contact his client between 21st, 22nd and 29th September, Judge Riddle is content that Ms Ny has refused to state her reasons for issuing a EAW instead of accepting Mr Assange's offers to be interrogated in England.
As stated in the decision by the High Court in December, what Mr Assange did ”is not the conduct of a person who is seeking to evade justice." When inteviewed in the media Ms Ny has given the following reason for not accepting Mr Assange's offer to be questioned in England: ”It would not be consistent with Swedish law.” This is simply not true.
The principle of proportionality will lack all sense if you accept that a state authority is not under an obligation to divulge its reasons for limiting a person's freedom!
Det är ganska klart att det är en rent politisk utlämmning och att det inte har något med svensk rättspraxis att göra, vilket avskrivandet hos första åklagaren tydligt visar.
Vi har ett rättshaveri i landet och det vore bra om vi kunde få ett mer självständigt rättsväsende som inte var politiskt styrt i enskilda fall som det är i fallet Assange enligt de flesta som ser en aning objektivt på historien.
Vill man bara höra Assange så är det enkelt att skicka ner en polis eller helt enkelt låta brittisk polis förhöra honom.
Hela historien blir absurd och uppenbart helt politiskt konstruerad. Väldigt stora kostnader för svenska skattebetalare blir det också för den här politiskt styrda rättsfarsen.
Judge Howard Riddle, in assessing the relevance of the witness-statements of Brita Sundberg-Weitman, might have missed the main relevant, and for the case only determinant point of such witness statement.
For it are her professional and academic experiences, and her expertise-knowledge on the Swedish judiciary and legal-system, what makes the witnessing of Sundberg-Weitman valuable in the reviewing of the publicly known procedures performed by Marianne Ny as prosecutor in the case Assange.
Ultimately, it was about an expertise assessment from the part of Associate Professor and former Judge Sundberg-Weitman as to which extent are the public professional doings of Marianne Ny (her public activities as prosecutor, or her statements in commenting legal issues, lecturing, etc.) congruent with Swedish judiciary and legal praxis.
Therefore, the question eventually to rise - if any - by Howard Riddle or Clare Montgomery with regard to the quality of her testimony, would have instead had emphasis on how well, or under which professional position or circumstances Brita Sundberg-Weitman is expertise-informed about the judiciary and legal praxis of Sweden. Nothing more.
Likewise, whether Sundberg-Weitman was personally acquainted with Marianne Ny, or how much she was directly involved with the case itself is downright irrelevant. And the fact that she was NOT could hardly speak against the objectivity of her testimony.
Quite at the contrary, if the witness would have had a personal or close professional acquaintance with Prosecutor Ny, then her witness-report would have been scrutinized from the view as to whether that close relationship would have bias her statements.
If I may protract the issue a bid further (just an argument of logics, not juridical): Do consider that neither Howard Riddle has ever worked close to the case or have had a personal or close knowledge of the procedures done by Ny in the case (the argumentation used to “disqualify” the witness). At the moment of the Court proceedings, all the cards shown, Judge Sundberg-Weitman knew as much or as little as Judge Riddle on the issue “personal or close knowledge of the procedures”. Yet he passes judgment ad-hominem against all her testimony exclusively based on that matter. Which, as I said above it was not even the point with her witnessing.
More in my "Comments on Judge Riddle's verdict & Lawyer. . ." at http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.com/2011/02/coments-on-judge-riddles-vedric...
Marcello Ferrada-Noli
http://www.dsm.nu/JA_arrest_UK-1.pdf
Intressant artikel. Tack för att du delar med dig av dina kunskaper.
Jag har förgäves försökt länka min blogg till Brita Sundberg-Weitmans artikel. Jag hoppas att det ska gå bättre att hänvisa till bloggen i kommentarspalten.
http://torsten-torstensblogg.blogspot.com/
Text: måndagen den 7 mars 2011
Tack Brita,
det var klargörande att åklagare Marianne Ny bör ha fattat beslutet om internationell efterlysning tillsammans med utrikesminister Bildt och riksåklagaren Perklev. Oroande är att statsminister Reinfeldt - landets starkaste opinionsbildare - tog parti i det pågående rättsärendet med patriotiska och feministiska tongångar. Tydligt är också att en kedja av socialdemokrater samarbetat för att sätta fast Julian Assange. Jakten på WikiLeaks grundare går ovanför partipolitiken.
Vi lever i ett paradigmskifte där Assange är historisk. Ny teknologi gör att makthavare kan räkna med att hemligt fuffens avslöjas. För Sveriges del har pinsamma förehavanden hos både socialdemokrater och moderater redan röjts av WikiLeaks. Och mer kan komma fram. Detsamma sker i andra länder. Därav etablissemangens avsky för WL-grundaren.
Beträffande de två svenskornas anklagelser mot Julian Assange: Helene Bergman, legendarisk feminist på SR, konstaterar att han verkar vara ”en vanlig man i sängen” (Newmill 2011-02-11). Jag instämmer efter att ha läst polisens häktningspromemoria.
Tror inte att de båda målsägarna ursprungligen ingick i någon komplott. Det kan uppstå missförståelse när man har sexumgänge utan att ha lärt känna varandra och kommer från olika länder.
Nu är de två svenskorna indragna i ett skenande maskineri som kan knäcka Assange genom mediamord och legala processer. Jag skulle råda kvinnorna att dra tillbaka sina anmälningar och bearbeta sina besvikelser på annat sätt.