Swedish dereliction of duty not to seize on the forged certificate in Assange-case?

Flashback by:  Out of the Blue

Citat:

Ursprungligen postat av alemanha Good interview with Assange from within the embassy: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-daylight.html

Agree, the article has a very different tone than what you usually get read. Short quotes from the article:

Citat:

He won’t speak of the precise circumstances surrounding the allegations, saying: ‘It does not do for a gentleman to complain.’ He also fears that any attempt to defend himself might suggest a crime had been committed.

I also viewed Wong's article Overview of English Criminal Procedure, the Rudling link to his site. http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcon...ristoffer_wong

In addition to discussions relevant to the JA can be considered "charged", there formulated in English about Swedish police and prosecutor's duty to pre-screen and prosecute. That's why it did not matter if AA and SW intention to report. Once their story came to the attention of the police was the police and prosecutors are obliged to act. Duty above all.

From pages 2-3 of Wong's article:

Citat:

According to c 23 s 1 para 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure (rättegångsbalk, RB), a preliminary investigation shall be opened as soon as there is reason to believe that a crime susceptible to public prosecution has been committed, either through a report or by other means. The legality principle is thus the main rule with regard to the opening of a preliminary investigation. However, the statutes also provides that a preliminary investigation is not required if: - it is evident that an investigation would be futile; - the cost of an investigation would be disproportionate having regard to the significance of the case, and prosecution of the crime would in any case not lead to a more severe punishment than fines; - it can be expected that the prosecution would not be brought as a result of a formal decision to drop charges (åtalsunderlåtelse) or the application of rules on special leave to proceed with prosecution, provided that private or public interest is not being disregarded; or - there is otherwise sufficient reason for prosecution of a crime that is not expected to lead to a more severe punishment that fines (or a crime committed before the court). [...] According to 20:6 RB, the Public Prosecutor (allmän åklagare) shall bring prosecution for crimes that are subject to public prosecution (cf the duty to open a preliminary investigation pursuant to 23:2 RB). It is always the Public Prosecutor - and not the police - who brings prosecutions. The legality principle is applicable, and one speaks of the Public Prosecutor's 'absolute duty to prosecute' (absolut åtalsplikt). This means that when the conditions for prosecution are satisfied, the prosecutor must prosecute; failure to prosecute in such cases may even amount to 'dereliction of duties' (tjänstefel), a criminal offense pursuant to c 20 s 1 CC. However, RB also provides a number of ways in which a prosecution can be avoided; these alternative ways of disposing a case are examined in section 3.2 below.

Now I have not read the whole article, and is not specific legal expert and do not know exactly how to interpret the exceptions, but still: Why has not anyone taken note of the false evidence AA submitted? It is obviously something that has come to the police and the prosecutor's knowledge, so why is it not their duty to act, to set up the notification, pre-screen and prosecute? Proof of State ought to be far better than in the charges against JA. Someone must surely have committed misconduct by failing to see it as their duty push the case of evidence falsification. Where did the duty road?

It's bad enough that the false evidence is not taken into account in order to challenge the charges against JA, but also it should be something like AA is being prosecuted. Twice misconduct is what it looks like.

Maybe it is something in what JA says in the article that it might look bad if he tried to push it, that malevolent would be quick to infer that he is guilty. He should not have to be the one who proves his innocence, for example by pointing out someone else guilty. It should, instead, be poliens and the prosecutor's duty to balance the charges against him by establishing a complaint against AA and run the case with at least the same assiduousness they persisted against JA. They do not do it, they can hardly be called neutral.

The question is just what police and prosecutors to be singled out as guilty of misconduct for having undlåtit to seize on the forged certificate. How far-fetched excuses they pushing out why the condom without reasonable amounts of DNA, probably have a suspicion level set quite high that this is evidence of forgery.

Original flashback:  https://www.flashback.org/sp39592746