Wikileaks' Julian Assange refused bail
07 Dec 2010

A London court today refused to grant bail to Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange. Assange is facing extradition to Sweden on sexual assault charges including one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape.

In spite of pledges of financial surety from high-profile figures including socialite Jemima Khan, journalist John Pilger and film-maker Ken Loach, District Judge Howard Riddle said he felt there was a substantial risk that Assange would flee the country. Assange will be remanded in custody until 14 December when extradition proceedings continue.

The judge stressed that the case should be judged on its merits and not conflated with Assange’s work for Wikileaks. He also noted that while there had not been a large amount of evidence presented to the court concerning the allegations, this was not unusual at this stage in extradition proceedings.

Speaking on the steps of the court, Assange’s legal representative Mark Stephens said that a renewed plea for bail would be made. He stressed he believed that Assange could safely have been released into custody, and that he was certain that many more people would offer sureties for Assange.

Earlier, Gemma Lindfield, representing the Swedish Judicial Authority, had said that while Assange had presented himself to police for arrest, the circumstances surrounding Wikileaks “Cablegate” scandal outweighed this fact. She also claimed that if Assange were released on bail, he could be subject to attack by “unstable persons”. John Jones, representing Assange, said it was equally likely that Assange would be assaulted while on remand.

Padraig Reidy

5 responses to “Wikileaks’ Julian Assange refused bail”

  1. Karl Pfeifer says:

    Marc, please give us some facts, why you believe
    that Swedish courts are part of an USA led conspiracy?

  2. Marc says:

    Let me guess…

    after a while J. Assange will be brought to Sweden.

    If that is the case. Act II will start and America will suddenly find a reason to accuse J. A. and he will be taken to the USA.

    We will see this scenario!

  3. ChrisW says:

    How odd that when allegations of rape are levelled, the Founder of Wikileaks bails instead of proving his innocence, then tries to blame this on other governments. Strange, for a web site allegedly devoted to free speech, you have copyrighted your material while ignoring the copyrights of others, including governments. Finally, it is amusing that Wikileaks has never published leaks from totalitarian regimes. The simple fact, of course, that had it done so, Mr. Assange would be dead now. Amusing that a man bent on destroying a country wants to claim the rights of that country, and which, as a non-citizen, is not entitled to. First Amendment? There are limits. Mr. Assange, a demonstrated flight risk from justice, is where he belongs, for the accusation of rape by two separate individuals.

  4. Anthony says:

    “The judge stressed that the case should be judged on its merits and not conflated with Assange’s work for Wikileaks.”

    Well, the judge has more sense than some of the supporters of Assange.