The liberal democrat MP Dr Julian Huppert yesterday quizzed the Brittish director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, over the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, during a Joint Committee on Human Rights hearing in Cambridge.
One question was why the prosecutor acted as an agent for Sweden in this matter, when they normally would not act this way even for their own government?
Mr Starmer replied: “There is a substantial difference between our role as public prosecutors here for domestic criminal cases and our role in extradition cases. There is no reason the role should be the same, because it is different.”
Dr Huppert: "How does the CPS exercise its duties under the Human Rights Act in such cases?"
"Can the CPS refuse to act if it think there is a breach?"
Mr Starmer: “There is no provision under the statute that says the CPS can refuse to act in the following circumstances, but that being said, we are bound by the Human Rights Act, and we are bound by our duties to the court.” However issues of human rights breaches is for the courts to determine, rather than the CPS."
Let's see if I have understood this correctly. England is bound by international law to treat a citizen of Australia with total disregard of the human rights they guarantee their own citizens?
This because a corrupted nutcase lawyer and his radfemme prosecutor buddy in Sweden together seem to be in total agreement he is a rapist? Doesn't that sound a little bit odd? Especially as mr Starmer at the same time states that they of course are bound by the the human rights act?
Not even the alleged victims had realized they had been raped when they went to the police, but then again, they aren't lawyers now are they?
Judges? No in Sweden we use politicians
In Sweden the courts don't give a rats ass about human rights. One explanation might be that in a Swedish court three out of the four judges in a district court do not need to have any legal education at all. All they need is a membership in a political party.
Do you remeber prime minister Reinfeldts words? In sweden we have an independent judicial system that is separated from politics.
I wonder how he thought?
Or for a father fighting for custody and visitation rights, against a malignant mother playing her violence and abuse free cards.
Even in the old soviet union you had to be a trained lawyer to sit on the bench. Sure they had political commissaries inspecting the trials, but in Sweden we have simplified things.
This may sound strange to a foreigner, but I kid you not. I myself could pretty easily become a judge here in Sweden. All I need to do is join a political party and then apply. Then I can sit on the bench and decide whether people should go free or spend the rest of their lives in jail.
That Sweden think it's absolutely ok to keep a man locked up indefinitely without even charging him with a crime is no surprise either. We actually often get criticised for this by the European court of human rights and the UN commission against torture. Did you know that? No? Well it's not something we advertise of course. Torture in Sweden?Get out of here!
Interesting to see that England also seem to be willing to bend the rules a little in this particular case. But let's wait and see. Maybe the honourable judges in the Brittish court of appeal will set things straight?
No matter what, it is gratifying to see though, that there are at least one politician in Britain brave enough to question this mockery of justice. In Sweden none of our 349 parliament members have as far as I know. Imagine that.