Hello

Your subscription is almost coming to an end. Don’t miss out on the great content on Nation.Africa

Ready to continue your informative journey with us?

Hello

Your premium access has ended, but the best of Nation.Africa is still within reach. Renew now to unlock exclusive stories and in-depth features.

Reclaim your full access. Click below to renew.

Caption for the landscape image:

Does the general public understand the concept of consent?

Scroll down to read the article

On August 11, 2010, a one Julian Assange flew from London to Stockholm in Sweden and stayed in the flat of Anna Ardin, who had arranged his trip. The lady was out of town then, but returned two days later, on August 13.

The two went out for a meal before returning to the flat. According to the woman’s account, which Assange refutes, the man started removing her clothes, until she claimed it was too late to stop him, as she had gone along with it so far.

She, however, realised that the man was trying to have unprotected sex with her, when he held her down and stopped her reaching for a condom. He would shortly after agreeing to use the condom, but according to Ardin, the man did something to the condom, which ripped it.

She organised a party for Assange the following day and told one of her friends that Assange, in many ways, was a fantastic person, but was totally different from the person who humiliated and abused her the previous evening. She described him as violent. She also told her friend about the ripped condom and unprotected sex. Ardin was convinced that Assange ripped the condom on purpose.

On August 14, Assange spoke at a seminar organised by Ardin, where she met a Miss W and had lunch with her. Two days later, Miss W called Assange and arranged to meet him and the two went back to her flat. She told police that when they started having sex, Assange did not want to wear a condom and lost interest, when she refused to have unprotected sex.

Later that night, they had consensual sex, although the man agreed, unwillingly, to use a condom. Early the next morning, she woke to discover making love to him and when she questioned him, he said he was not wearing a condom. She then asked the man to take a test for sexually transmitted infections, but he refused on grounds that he did not have time.

On August 18, Assange applied for a work and residence permit in Sweden, while staying at Ardin’s flat, who told police later that morning that Assange exposed himself to her and rubbed his penis against her, an act which in Sweden is characterised as deliberate molestation

Later on, Miss W contacted Ardin to help her reach Assange. When the two women spoke to each other, they realised the two of them had similar experiences and they decided to go to the police together to report.

On August 20, the two women reported to the Swedish police that Assange had engaged in unprotected sexual activity with them, which violated the scope of their consent. The police told them they could not simply make Assange take an STD test, but that their statements would be passed on to a prosecutor.

The next day, the case was transferred to the chief public prosecutor. Assange, considered the allegations deeply disturbing and in his defence, said they were without basis. The investigation concerning rape was discontinued on August 25, but the investigations into other allegations continued.

On August 30, Assange was interrogated by the Stockholm police, regarding the alleged sexual molestation. He denied the allegation but further told police that he had consensual sexual encounters with the two women.

On September 1, 2010, the director of public prosecution decided to resume preliminary investigation, concerning all of the original allegations. On September 27, Assange left Sweden for UK, but prosecutors informed his lawyer that an arrest warrant would be issued. The prosecutors had tried to interview Assange before he left Sweden with their permission. A warrant of arrest was issued for Assange on the same day.

Assange told friends in London that he was supposed to return to Stockholm for a police interview on October 14, but that he had decided to stay away. On October 18, 2010, Assange’s request for a Swedish residency was denied because his application failed to fulfill all the requirements.

On the same day, the director of public prosecution ordered for the detention of Assange on suspicion of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. The Stockholm district court agreed to the order and issued a European Arrest Warrant to execute it.

Assange’s lawyer appealed against the arrest warrant, but the Court of Appeal upheld it, but changed the order to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree- unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation rather than three.

A further appeal to the Supreme Court was filed, but court decided not to hear the case. On November 30, 2010, Interpol posted a red notice and put Assange on its most wanted list.

Assange presented himself to and was arrested by officers from the Metropolitan Police Extradition Unit at Scotland Yard on December 7, 2010, and was remanded to London’s Wandsworth Prison. On December 16, he was granted bail with conditions of, among others, wearing an electronic tag. Upon release on bail, Assange said he hoped to continue to protest his innocence in the matter under investigation.

The extradition hearing took place in February 2011, in London. Arguments were presented as to whether the Swedish prosecutor had the authority to issue a European Arrest Warrant, if the extradition was requested for prosecution or interrogation, if the alleged crimes qualified as extradition crime, if there was an abuse of the process, if his human rights would be respected, and if he would receive a fair trial if he were extradited to Sweden.

On February 24, 2011, Court gave its verdict on the extradition warrant; court upheld the warrant. Court ruled against each of the main arguments against the extradition. Court noted that no evidence had been provided to prove that the warrant was politically motivated. 

The judge said as a matter of fact and looking at all the circumstances of the case, Assange passed the threshold of being an accused person and concluded that the specific offences he was wanted for were extradition offences and one of the allegations would amount to rape in the UK. To Assange, the decision to extradite him came as no surprise, although it was wrong. To him, it came as a result of a European arrest warrant system gone wrong.