Julian Assange extradition appeal: QCs clash over ’conceptions of consent’
The GuardianRoyal Courts of Justice, 13 July 2011 by Robert Booth (Excerpts)
In an increasingly hard fought legal battle, Assange’s counsel, Ben Emmerson QC, hit back at what he said were attempts by Montgomery to characterise him as having "19th-century conceptions of consent". It was "crazy" of Montgomery to isolate a moment of lack of consent within sexual encounters that were otherwise consenting. He said police reports in Sweden showed SW had told a friend, Marie Thorn, that she felt police and others around her "railroaded her" into pressing charges. She had only wanted the police to force Assange to take a blood test after she became worried about HIV after unprotected sex with him, he said.
Emmerson said a friend of AA, Donald Bostrom, said "she didn’t say at all she had been exposed to abuse and didn’t even want to go to the police", and a charge of sexual molestation arising from Assange sharing a single bed with AA was also unfounded.
The European arrest warrant said Assange "deliberately molested the injured party on 18 August 2010 by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity".
In an interview, AA said Assange undressed below the waist and rubbed his erect penis against her. She found it "strange" and "awkward" and moved to sleep on a mattress on the floor. But Assange’s erection was normal, Emmerson told the court.
"He’s lying beside her in a single bed my lord," he said. "Men will get erections involuntarily and at different times during a night’s sleep. If she chooses to spend a night in a single bed with a man there is a strong possibility she will come into contact with an erect penis. I don’t mean that as a joke."
"I agree with you," said Thomas.
However, Montgomery told the court the definition of an extradition offence "means the conduct complained of. It has nothing to do with the evidence."
Thomas appeared to concur: "We are not concerned with whether this is a good case or a bad case but whether what is charged amounts to a crime."
In one of several criticisms of the Swedish authorities, Emmerson said: "The clearest possible facts have been concealed through the terminology of the warrant. That is wrong and it is the responsibility of this court to put it right."
Read the original article in full in The Guardian.
