What would be Julian Assange's expected punishment, on the current English criminal law?
Currently, the only charges form the British side against him are, that he avoided the criminal procedure (he was, on the British law, a fugitive) by his "visit" on the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Meanwhile, the British police has spent £11million.
Now consider the case if he wouldn't be extradited to the U.S on some reason, and any other "extra-judicial measurement" (for example, "committing suicide" in his cell) wouldn't happen.
What is the punishment for that in English law?
criminal-law united-kingdom
asked Apr 14 at 14:15
Gray SheepGray Sheep
306314
add a comment |
Currently, the only charges form the British side against him are, that he avoided the criminal procedure (he was, on the British law, a fugitive) by his "visit" on the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Meanwhile, the British police has spent £11million.
Now consider the case if he wouldn't be extradited to the U.S on some reason, and any other "extra-judicial measurement" (for example, "committing suicide" in his cell) wouldn't happen.
What is the punishment for that in English law?
criminal-law united-kingdom
asked Apr 14 at 14:15
Gray SheepGray Sheep
306314
add a comment |
Currently, the only charges form the British side against him are, that he avoided the criminal procedure (he was, on the British law, a fugitive) by his "visit" on the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Meanwhile, the British police has spent £11million.
Now consider the case if he wouldn't be extradited to the U.S on some reason, and any other "extra-judicial measurement" (for example, "committing suicide" in his cell) wouldn't happen.
What is the punishment for that in English law?
criminal-law united-kingdom
asked Apr 14 at 14:15
Gray SheepGray Sheep
306314
Currently, the only charges form the British side against him are, that he avoided the criminal procedure (he was, on the British law, a fugitive) by his "visit" on the Ecuadorian Embassy.
Meanwhile, the British police has spent £11million.
Now consider the case if he wouldn't be extradited to the U.S on some reason, and any other "extra-judicial measurement" (for example, "committing suicide" in his cell) wouldn't happen.
What is the punishment for that in English law?
criminal-law united-kingdom
criminal-law united-kingdom
asked Apr 14 at 14:15
Gray SheepGray Sheep
306314
asked Apr 14 at 14:15
Gray SheepGray Sheep
306314
edited Apr 16 at 11:16
Gray Sheep
asked Apr 14 at 14:15
Gray SheepGray Sheep
306314
asked Apr 14 at 14:15
Gray SheepGray Sheep
306314
asked Apr 14 at 14:15
Gray SheepGray Sheep
306314
306314
add a comment |
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
Up to 12 months in jail. Just by coincidence, only this week some guy who was given a jail sentence of several years for manslaughter, then jumped bail and left the country, and was extradited back to the UK, was given six months jail for jumping bail.
The punishment is for jumping bail, which is an offence independent of whether the original charges are true or false. So the cases are somehow comparable, except Assange jumped bail for seven years, which would be worse, and Assange didn't leave the country but entered a foreign embassy, which I have no idea how that compares to leaving the country.
answered Apr 14 at 14:21
gnasher729gnasher729
12k1329
2
@dan-klasson - The UK is under no legal obligation to accept the findings of UN working groups
– Richard
Apr 15 at 13:12
3
IANAL, but I do believe entering an embassy is entering a different country.
– Jasper
Apr 15 at 15:26
9
@Jasper, that's a common misconception. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 does prohibit local authorities from entering the premises without invitation or searching it etc but the plot of land is nevertheless the territory of the nation where it is located.
– Lag
Apr 15 at 16:21
2
The notion that he was "illegal detained" is absolutely ludicrous. He was a prisoner of circumstance, perhaps, but only by his own choice to flee entirely valid legal proceedings, and to seek asylum at an embassy, knowing full well what that meant for him in practice. So if he was a prisoner, it was only because he "imprisoned" himself. Silly UN.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Apr 15 at 16:35
2
@Jasper: No, the embassy is UK territory. The UK just needed Ecuador's permission to pick up Assange, but the arrest was made by British police on British soil. Importantly, Assange was therefore not extradited from Ecuador. Also, the UK never accepted Assange as an Ecuadorian diplomat; he only was tolerated because the embassy itself was out of bounds.
– MSalters
Apr 15 at 17:05
|
show 20 more comments
12 months in jail and a £5000 fine (probably).
Julian Assange has been convicted of breaching the Bail Act 1976, specifically Section 6; to whit, Offence of absconding by person released on bail.
If a person who—
(a)has been released on bail in criminal proceedings, and
(b)having reasonable cause therefor, has failed to surrender to custody,fails to surrender to custody at the appointed place as soon after the appointed time as is reasonably practicable he shall be guilty of an offence.
The punishment for this offence is
"a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine [up to £5000] or to both."
Under the circumstances and given the extreme nature of his contempt of court proceedings (hiding for years and making snarky remarks in the press) it seems likely that he will receive the full sentence as well as a £5000 fine on May 2nd.
Judge finds Assange guilty of breaking bail conditions, orders him to
appear in court on May 2
Back inside the courtroom, one of Assange's lawyers argued that he did
not surrender for bail back in 2012 because he would never have
received a fair trial and was thus forced to seek asylum in the
Ecuadorean embassy.
The judge appeared to dispute this and called the Australian WikiLeaks
founder a “narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest.”
The judge found Assange guilty of breaking his bail conditions and
ordered him to appear on May 2 for an extradition hearing. Until then,
he said Assange would remain in custody.
The hearing has now ended.
Judge finds Assange guilty of breaking bail conditions, orders him to appear in court on May 2
He will probably serve a term of at least 3 months in jail (the judge will likely not take his time in the Ecuadorian Embassy into consideration, but he did spend some time on remand and bail before he absconded and while awaiting sentencing) after which he will likely face extradition to either Sweden or the US or deportation to his home country of Australia.
answered Apr 14 at 21:54
RichardRichard
596313
12
@GraySheep no, they didn't - there were never any charges from Sweden to begin with, just an European Arrest Warrant. This is because the Swedish judicial system requires that the suspect be charged in person at an interview, they cannot be charged in absentia. Sweden dropped the investigation and thus the existing European Arrest Warrant - but they can reopen the investigation at a moments notice and issue a new European Arrest Warrant just as quickly. Given that the victims lawyer is pushing for this to happen, extradition to Sweden is infact highly likely at this point in time.
– Moo
Apr 15 at 1:24
4
If Assange is removed to Sweden or the US, the verb normally used would be extradited, not deported.
– phoog
Apr 15 at 1:28
3
I think "dropped" has a different connotation to what happened. Three of the four investigations became time-barred because Assange was in the embassy so long and the rape investigation would have become time-barred in 2020 if the Swedish prosecutor had not decided to discontinue it because it could not proceed while Assange was in the embassy, reserving the right to resume it if Assange left the embassy.
– Lag
Apr 15 at 8:43
2
@ShazamoMorebucks - I'm reasonably sure ""or to both." indicates that a custodial sentence (or a community order) and a fine can be levied
– Richard
Apr 15 at 14:28
1
@dan-klasson "because the Swedish prosecutors refused to interrogate him at the embassy. " - for a time that is true but subsequently the Swedish courts criticised the prosecutors for that (while upholding the warrant) and attempts were made to interview him at the embassy which he and/or his hosts thwarted. Read from para 49 bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2018/B3.html
– Lag
Apr 15 at 14:29
|
show 9 more comments
He will likely be charged with Failure to Surrender to Bail
It is an either-way offence, meaning it can be tried either on summary trial, in the magistrates court (with a maximum punishment of 3 months imprisonment), or on indictment in crown court, which carries a maximum punishment of 12 months imprisonment.
It is likely that in his plea before venue, the magistrates court would deny jurisdiction, and so force the case to be heard in the crown court.
In my opinion, Assange ought to plead guilty at first instance, so he can be awarded the maximum credit for a guilty plea of 1/3 off his sentence. (This credit must be given to Assange)
The court will look at the [Sentencing Guidelines]2. Due to the culpability and extent of his offence, he will probably face the maximum sentence of 12 months.
12 months taking away 4 months for guilty plea, means a sentence of 8 months. A person only serves 1/2 of his sentence (yes, this is a rule), so he will only spend 4 months of that sentence incarcerated, the rest of it will be on license (in America, this will be called on parole).
For more in depth information, along with commentary, A lawyer should consult Blackstone's Criminal Practice.
answered Apr 15 at 13:23
Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks
3,1901827
2
He pled not guilty at the magistrate's court and was sent to crown court for sentencing. Since two of the items under "assessing seriousness" are "[the] extent [to which] the failure to surrender impeded the course of justice" (it caused most of the investigations against him to lapse under the statute of limitations) and " the consequential drain on police and court resources" (however many millions of pounds it cost the police), I agree that a sentence at the high end sounds very likely.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 14:48
1
According to news reports he's already been found guilty of failing to surrender by a judge in Westminster Magistrates' Court. His case was then sent to Southwark Crown Court for sentencing. Which sounds like the magistrates' court didn't deny jurisdiction, and was found guilty at a summary trial. bbc.com/news/uk-47891737
– Ross Ridge
Apr 15 at 17:07
@DavidRicherby : Why would anyone in such a situation plead "not guilty", knowing that it will just increase his prison sentence? I know some people are aiming to be seen as martyrs, but how will an extra few months help in achieving that, especially as this sentence won't be for the accusations he was originally fleeing from? For the espionage charges the USA is accusing him, I could understand him denying them (even if pleading guilty might reduce his sentence in the USA if he is extradited), out of principle. But for jumping bail? I thought he was smart enough to listen to his lawyers.
– vsz
Apr 16 at 4:08
1
@vsz He seems to believe that the sexual assault charges in Sweden are just a sham to get him into an American jail. By extension, the British court proceedings were just a sham to get him into a Swedish jail. Or to put it another way, he's special so the law doesn't apply to him. But people plead not guilty all the time: remember that every court case you hear of where evidence has been heard in front of a jury is after the defendant has pled not guilty.
– David Richerby
Apr 16 at 8:31
The page you link to says that it's only for 2years+ that you get to serve half the sentence on licence.
– cnst♦
Apr 16 at 13:47
|
show 1 more comment
The current sentence would be 12 months.
answered Apr 14 at 16:48
LoriGLoriG
21
New contributor
LoriG is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Up to 12 months. And answers are always improved by a reference to an authoritative source, rather than just being a somebody-on-the-internet claim.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 14:51
Correct: uo to 12 months for skipping bail under British law.
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 15:22
Also, David Richerby: Please note that everyone on a forum such as this is “some person on the internet” so there is no need for snark
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 15:24
6
Yes, everyone here is "some person on the internet". That's why it's important to give sources.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 15:35
The Supreme Court of The United Kingdom also known as British Law by law students and common sense
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 16:33
|
show 1 more comment
protected by feetwet♦ Apr 15 at 19:57
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Up to 12 months in jail. Just by coincidence, only this week some guy who was given a jail sentence of several years for manslaughter, then jumped bail and left the country, and was extradited back to the UK, was given six months jail for jumping bail.
The punishment is for jumping bail, which is an offence independent of whether the original charges are true or false. So the cases are somehow comparable, except Assange jumped bail for seven years, which would be worse, and Assange didn't leave the country but entered a foreign embassy, which I have no idea how that compares to leaving the country.
answered Apr 14 at 14:21
gnasher729gnasher729
12k1329
2
@dan-klasson - The UK is under no legal obligation to accept the findings of UN working groups
– Richard
Apr 15 at 13:12
3
IANAL, but I do believe entering an embassy is entering a different country.
– Jasper
Apr 15 at 15:26
9
@Jasper, that's a common misconception. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 does prohibit local authorities from entering the premises without invitation or searching it etc but the plot of land is nevertheless the territory of the nation where it is located.
– Lag
Apr 15 at 16:21
2
The notion that he was "illegal detained" is absolutely ludicrous. He was a prisoner of circumstance, perhaps, but only by his own choice to flee entirely valid legal proceedings, and to seek asylum at an embassy, knowing full well what that meant for him in practice. So if he was a prisoner, it was only because he "imprisoned" himself. Silly UN.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Apr 15 at 16:35
2
@Jasper: No, the embassy is UK territory. The UK just needed Ecuador's permission to pick up Assange, but the arrest was made by British police on British soil. Importantly, Assange was therefore not extradited from Ecuador. Also, the UK never accepted Assange as an Ecuadorian diplomat; he only was tolerated because the embassy itself was out of bounds.
– MSalters
Apr 15 at 17:05
|
show 20 more comments
Up to 12 months in jail. Just by coincidence, only this week some guy who was given a jail sentence of several years for manslaughter, then jumped bail and left the country, and was extradited back to the UK, was given six months jail for jumping bail.
The punishment is for jumping bail, which is an offence independent of whether the original charges are true or false. So the cases are somehow comparable, except Assange jumped bail for seven years, which would be worse, and Assange didn't leave the country but entered a foreign embassy, which I have no idea how that compares to leaving the country.
answered Apr 14 at 14:21
gnasher729gnasher729
12k1329
2
@dan-klasson - The UK is under no legal obligation to accept the findings of UN working groups
– Richard
Apr 15 at 13:12
3
IANAL, but I do believe entering an embassy is entering a different country.
– Jasper
Apr 15 at 15:26
9
@Jasper, that's a common misconception. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 does prohibit local authorities from entering the premises without invitation or searching it etc but the plot of land is nevertheless the territory of the nation where it is located.
– Lag
Apr 15 at 16:21
2
The notion that he was "illegal detained" is absolutely ludicrous. He was a prisoner of circumstance, perhaps, but only by his own choice to flee entirely valid legal proceedings, and to seek asylum at an embassy, knowing full well what that meant for him in practice. So if he was a prisoner, it was only because he "imprisoned" himself. Silly UN.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Apr 15 at 16:35
2
@Jasper: No, the embassy is UK territory. The UK just needed Ecuador's permission to pick up Assange, but the arrest was made by British police on British soil. Importantly, Assange was therefore not extradited from Ecuador. Also, the UK never accepted Assange as an Ecuadorian diplomat; he only was tolerated because the embassy itself was out of bounds.
– MSalters
Apr 15 at 17:05
|
show 20 more comments
Up to 12 months in jail. Just by coincidence, only this week some guy who was given a jail sentence of several years for manslaughter, then jumped bail and left the country, and was extradited back to the UK, was given six months jail for jumping bail.
The punishment is for jumping bail, which is an offence independent of whether the original charges are true or false. So the cases are somehow comparable, except Assange jumped bail for seven years, which would be worse, and Assange didn't leave the country but entered a foreign embassy, which I have no idea how that compares to leaving the country.
answered Apr 14 at 14:21
gnasher729gnasher729
12k1329
Up to 12 months in jail. Just by coincidence, only this week some guy who was given a jail sentence of several years for manslaughter, then jumped bail and left the country, and was extradited back to the UK, was given six months jail for jumping bail.
The punishment is for jumping bail, which is an offence independent of whether the original charges are true or false. So the cases are somehow comparable, except Assange jumped bail for seven years, which would be worse, and Assange didn't leave the country but entered a foreign embassy, which I have no idea how that compares to leaving the country.
answered Apr 14 at 14:21
gnasher729gnasher729
12k1329
answered Apr 14 at 14:21
gnasher729gnasher729
12k1329
answered Apr 14 at 14:21
gnasher729gnasher729
12k1329
answered Apr 14 at 14:21
gnasher729gnasher729
12k1329
12k1329
2
@dan-klasson - The UK is under no legal obligation to accept the findings of UN working groups
– Richard
Apr 15 at 13:12
3
IANAL, but I do believe entering an embassy is entering a different country.
– Jasper
Apr 15 at 15:26
9
@Jasper, that's a common misconception. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 does prohibit local authorities from entering the premises without invitation or searching it etc but the plot of land is nevertheless the territory of the nation where it is located.
– Lag
Apr 15 at 16:21
2
The notion that he was "illegal detained" is absolutely ludicrous. He was a prisoner of circumstance, perhaps, but only by his own choice to flee entirely valid legal proceedings, and to seek asylum at an embassy, knowing full well what that meant for him in practice. So if he was a prisoner, it was only because he "imprisoned" himself. Silly UN.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Apr 15 at 16:35
2
@Jasper: No, the embassy is UK territory. The UK just needed Ecuador's permission to pick up Assange, but the arrest was made by British police on British soil. Importantly, Assange was therefore not extradited from Ecuador. Also, the UK never accepted Assange as an Ecuadorian diplomat; he only was tolerated because the embassy itself was out of bounds.
– MSalters
Apr 15 at 17:05
|
show 20 more comments
2
@dan-klasson - The UK is under no legal obligation to accept the findings of UN working groups
– Richard
Apr 15 at 13:12
3
IANAL, but I do believe entering an embassy is entering a different country.
– Jasper
Apr 15 at 15:26
9
@Jasper, that's a common misconception. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 does prohibit local authorities from entering the premises without invitation or searching it etc but the plot of land is nevertheless the territory of the nation where it is located.
– Lag
Apr 15 at 16:21
2
The notion that he was "illegal detained" is absolutely ludicrous. He was a prisoner of circumstance, perhaps, but only by his own choice to flee entirely valid legal proceedings, and to seek asylum at an embassy, knowing full well what that meant for him in practice. So if he was a prisoner, it was only because he "imprisoned" himself. Silly UN.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Apr 15 at 16:35
2
@Jasper: No, the embassy is UK territory. The UK just needed Ecuador's permission to pick up Assange, but the arrest was made by British police on British soil. Importantly, Assange was therefore not extradited from Ecuador. Also, the UK never accepted Assange as an Ecuadorian diplomat; he only was tolerated because the embassy itself was out of bounds.
– MSalters
Apr 15 at 17:05
2
2
@dan-klasson - The UK is under no legal obligation to accept the findings of UN working groups
– Richard
Apr 15 at 13:12
@dan-klasson - The UK is under no legal obligation to accept the findings of UN working groups
– Richard
Apr 15 at 13:12
3
3
IANAL, but I do believe entering an embassy is entering a different country.
– Jasper
Apr 15 at 15:26
IANAL, but I do believe entering an embassy is entering a different country.
– Jasper
Apr 15 at 15:26
9
9
@Jasper, that's a common misconception. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 does prohibit local authorities from entering the premises without invitation or searching it etc but the plot of land is nevertheless the territory of the nation where it is located.
– Lag
Apr 15 at 16:21
@Jasper, that's a common misconception. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 does prohibit local authorities from entering the premises without invitation or searching it etc but the plot of land is nevertheless the territory of the nation where it is located.
– Lag
Apr 15 at 16:21
2
2
The notion that he was "illegal detained" is absolutely ludicrous. He was a prisoner of circumstance, perhaps, but only by his own choice to flee entirely valid legal proceedings, and to seek asylum at an embassy, knowing full well what that meant for him in practice. So if he was a prisoner, it was only because he "imprisoned" himself. Silly UN.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Apr 15 at 16:35
The notion that he was "illegal detained" is absolutely ludicrous. He was a prisoner of circumstance, perhaps, but only by his own choice to flee entirely valid legal proceedings, and to seek asylum at an embassy, knowing full well what that meant for him in practice. So if he was a prisoner, it was only because he "imprisoned" himself. Silly UN.
– Lightness Races in Orbit
Apr 15 at 16:35
2
2
@Jasper: No, the embassy is UK territory. The UK just needed Ecuador's permission to pick up Assange, but the arrest was made by British police on British soil. Importantly, Assange was therefore not extradited from Ecuador. Also, the UK never accepted Assange as an Ecuadorian diplomat; he only was tolerated because the embassy itself was out of bounds.
– MSalters
Apr 15 at 17:05
@Jasper: No, the embassy is UK territory. The UK just needed Ecuador's permission to pick up Assange, but the arrest was made by British police on British soil. Importantly, Assange was therefore not extradited from Ecuador. Also, the UK never accepted Assange as an Ecuadorian diplomat; he only was tolerated because the embassy itself was out of bounds.
– MSalters
Apr 15 at 17:05
|
show 20 more comments
12 months in jail and a £5000 fine (probably).
Julian Assange has been convicted of breaching the Bail Act 1976, specifically Section 6; to whit, Offence of absconding by person released on bail.
If a person who—
(a)has been released on bail in criminal proceedings, and
(b)having reasonable cause therefor, has failed to surrender to custody,fails to surrender to custody at the appointed place as soon after the appointed time as is reasonably practicable he shall be guilty of an offence.
The punishment for this offence is
"a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine [up to £5000] or to both."
Under the circumstances and given the extreme nature of his contempt of court proceedings (hiding for years and making snarky remarks in the press) it seems likely that he will receive the full sentence as well as a £5000 fine on May 2nd.
Judge finds Assange guilty of breaking bail conditions, orders him to
appear in court on May 2
Back inside the courtroom, one of Assange's lawyers argued that he did
not surrender for bail back in 2012 because he would never have
received a fair trial and was thus forced to seek asylum in the
Ecuadorean embassy.
The judge appeared to dispute this and called the Australian WikiLeaks
founder a “narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest.”
The judge found Assange guilty of breaking his bail conditions and
ordered him to appear on May 2 for an extradition hearing. Until then,
he said Assange would remain in custody.
The hearing has now ended.
Judge finds Assange guilty of breaking bail conditions, orders him to appear in court on May 2
He will probably serve a term of at least 3 months in jail (the judge will likely not take his time in the Ecuadorian Embassy into consideration, but he did spend some time on remand and bail before he absconded and while awaiting sentencing) after which he will likely face extradition to either Sweden or the US or deportation to his home country of Australia.
answered Apr 14 at 21:54
RichardRichard
596313
12
@GraySheep no, they didn't - there were never any charges from Sweden to begin with, just an European Arrest Warrant. This is because the Swedish judicial system requires that the suspect be charged in person at an interview, they cannot be charged in absentia. Sweden dropped the investigation and thus the existing European Arrest Warrant - but they can reopen the investigation at a moments notice and issue a new European Arrest Warrant just as quickly. Given that the victims lawyer is pushing for this to happen, extradition to Sweden is infact highly likely at this point in time.
– Moo
Apr 15 at 1:24
4
If Assange is removed to Sweden or the US, the verb normally used would be extradited, not deported.
– phoog
Apr 15 at 1:28
3
I think "dropped" has a different connotation to what happened. Three of the four investigations became time-barred because Assange was in the embassy so long and the rape investigation would have become time-barred in 2020 if the Swedish prosecutor had not decided to discontinue it because it could not proceed while Assange was in the embassy, reserving the right to resume it if Assange left the embassy.
– Lag
Apr 15 at 8:43
2
@ShazamoMorebucks - I'm reasonably sure ""or to both." indicates that a custodial sentence (or a community order) and a fine can be levied
– Richard
Apr 15 at 14:28
1
@dan-klasson "because the Swedish prosecutors refused to interrogate him at the embassy. " - for a time that is true but subsequently the Swedish courts criticised the prosecutors for that (while upholding the warrant) and attempts were made to interview him at the embassy which he and/or his hosts thwarted. Read from para 49 bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2018/B3.html
– Lag
Apr 15 at 14:29
|
show 9 more comments
12 months in jail and a £5000 fine (probably).
Julian Assange has been convicted of breaching the Bail Act 1976, specifically Section 6; to whit, Offence of absconding by person released on bail.
If a person who—
(a)has been released on bail in criminal proceedings, and
(b)having reasonable cause therefor, has failed to surrender to custody,fails to surrender to custody at the appointed place as soon after the appointed time as is reasonably practicable he shall be guilty of an offence.
The punishment for this offence is
"a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine [up to £5000] or to both."
Under the circumstances and given the extreme nature of his contempt of court proceedings (hiding for years and making snarky remarks in the press) it seems likely that he will receive the full sentence as well as a £5000 fine on May 2nd.
Judge finds Assange guilty of breaking bail conditions, orders him to
appear in court on May 2
Back inside the courtroom, one of Assange's lawyers argued that he did
not surrender for bail back in 2012 because he would never have
received a fair trial and was thus forced to seek asylum in the
Ecuadorean embassy.
The judge appeared to dispute this and called the Australian WikiLeaks
founder a “narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest.”
The judge found Assange guilty of breaking his bail conditions and
ordered him to appear on May 2 for an extradition hearing. Until then,
he said Assange would remain in custody.
The hearing has now ended.
Judge finds Assange guilty of breaking bail conditions, orders him to appear in court on May 2
He will probably serve a term of at least 3 months in jail (the judge will likely not take his time in the Ecuadorian Embassy into consideration, but he did spend some time on remand and bail before he absconded and while awaiting sentencing) after which he will likely face extradition to either Sweden or the US or deportation to his home country of Australia.
answered Apr 14 at 21:54
RichardRichard
596313
12
@GraySheep no, they didn't - there were never any charges from Sweden to begin with, just an European Arrest Warrant. This is because the Swedish judicial system requires that the suspect be charged in person at an interview, they cannot be charged in absentia. Sweden dropped the investigation and thus the existing European Arrest Warrant - but they can reopen the investigation at a moments notice and issue a new European Arrest Warrant just as quickly. Given that the victims lawyer is pushing for this to happen, extradition to Sweden is infact highly likely at this point in time.
– Moo
Apr 15 at 1:24
4
If Assange is removed to Sweden or the US, the verb normally used would be extradited, not deported.
– phoog
Apr 15 at 1:28
3
I think "dropped" has a different connotation to what happened. Three of the four investigations became time-barred because Assange was in the embassy so long and the rape investigation would have become time-barred in 2020 if the Swedish prosecutor had not decided to discontinue it because it could not proceed while Assange was in the embassy, reserving the right to resume it if Assange left the embassy.
– Lag
Apr 15 at 8:43
2
@ShazamoMorebucks - I'm reasonably sure ""or to both." indicates that a custodial sentence (or a community order) and a fine can be levied
– Richard
Apr 15 at 14:28
1
@dan-klasson "because the Swedish prosecutors refused to interrogate him at the embassy. " - for a time that is true but subsequently the Swedish courts criticised the prosecutors for that (while upholding the warrant) and attempts were made to interview him at the embassy which he and/or his hosts thwarted. Read from para 49 bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2018/B3.html
– Lag
Apr 15 at 14:29
|
show 9 more comments
12 months in jail and a £5000 fine (probably).
Julian Assange has been convicted of breaching the Bail Act 1976, specifically Section 6; to whit, Offence of absconding by person released on bail.
If a person who—
(a)has been released on bail in criminal proceedings, and
(b)having reasonable cause therefor, has failed to surrender to custody,fails to surrender to custody at the appointed place as soon after the appointed time as is reasonably practicable he shall be guilty of an offence.
The punishment for this offence is
"a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine [up to £5000] or to both."
Under the circumstances and given the extreme nature of his contempt of court proceedings (hiding for years and making snarky remarks in the press) it seems likely that he will receive the full sentence as well as a £5000 fine on May 2nd.
Judge finds Assange guilty of breaking bail conditions, orders him to
appear in court on May 2
Back inside the courtroom, one of Assange's lawyers argued that he did
not surrender for bail back in 2012 because he would never have
received a fair trial and was thus forced to seek asylum in the
Ecuadorean embassy.
The judge appeared to dispute this and called the Australian WikiLeaks
founder a “narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest.”
The judge found Assange guilty of breaking his bail conditions and
ordered him to appear on May 2 for an extradition hearing. Until then,
he said Assange would remain in custody.
The hearing has now ended.
Judge finds Assange guilty of breaking bail conditions, orders him to appear in court on May 2
He will probably serve a term of at least 3 months in jail (the judge will likely not take his time in the Ecuadorian Embassy into consideration, but he did spend some time on remand and bail before he absconded and while awaiting sentencing) after which he will likely face extradition to either Sweden or the US or deportation to his home country of Australia.
answered Apr 14 at 21:54
RichardRichard
596313
12 months in jail and a £5000 fine (probably).
Julian Assange has been convicted of breaching the Bail Act 1976, specifically Section 6; to whit, Offence of absconding by person released on bail.
If a person who—
(a)has been released on bail in criminal proceedings, and
(b)having reasonable cause therefor, has failed to surrender to custody,fails to surrender to custody at the appointed place as soon after the appointed time as is reasonably practicable he shall be guilty of an offence.
The punishment for this offence is
"a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine [up to £5000] or to both."
Under the circumstances and given the extreme nature of his contempt of court proceedings (hiding for years and making snarky remarks in the press) it seems likely that he will receive the full sentence as well as a £5000 fine on May 2nd.
Judge finds Assange guilty of breaking bail conditions, orders him to
appear in court on May 2
Back inside the courtroom, one of Assange's lawyers argued that he did
not surrender for bail back in 2012 because he would never have
received a fair trial and was thus forced to seek asylum in the
Ecuadorean embassy.
The judge appeared to dispute this and called the Australian WikiLeaks
founder a “narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest.”
The judge found Assange guilty of breaking his bail conditions and
ordered him to appear on May 2 for an extradition hearing. Until then,
he said Assange would remain in custody.
The hearing has now ended.
Judge finds Assange guilty of breaking bail conditions, orders him to appear in court on May 2
He will probably serve a term of at least 3 months in jail (the judge will likely not take his time in the Ecuadorian Embassy into consideration, but he did spend some time on remand and bail before he absconded and while awaiting sentencing) after which he will likely face extradition to either Sweden or the US or deportation to his home country of Australia.
answered Apr 14 at 21:54
RichardRichard
596313
edited Apr 15 at 6:10
answered Apr 14 at 21:54
RichardRichard
596313
answered Apr 14 at 21:54
RichardRichard
596313
answered Apr 14 at 21:54
RichardRichard
596313
596313
12
@GraySheep no, they didn't - there were never any charges from Sweden to begin with, just an European Arrest Warrant. This is because the Swedish judicial system requires that the suspect be charged in person at an interview, they cannot be charged in absentia. Sweden dropped the investigation and thus the existing European Arrest Warrant - but they can reopen the investigation at a moments notice and issue a new European Arrest Warrant just as quickly. Given that the victims lawyer is pushing for this to happen, extradition to Sweden is infact highly likely at this point in time.
– Moo
Apr 15 at 1:24
4
If Assange is removed to Sweden or the US, the verb normally used would be extradited, not deported.
– phoog
Apr 15 at 1:28
3
I think "dropped" has a different connotation to what happened. Three of the four investigations became time-barred because Assange was in the embassy so long and the rape investigation would have become time-barred in 2020 if the Swedish prosecutor had not decided to discontinue it because it could not proceed while Assange was in the embassy, reserving the right to resume it if Assange left the embassy.
– Lag
Apr 15 at 8:43
2
@ShazamoMorebucks - I'm reasonably sure ""or to both." indicates that a custodial sentence (or a community order) and a fine can be levied
– Richard
Apr 15 at 14:28
1
@dan-klasson "because the Swedish prosecutors refused to interrogate him at the embassy. " - for a time that is true but subsequently the Swedish courts criticised the prosecutors for that (while upholding the warrant) and attempts were made to interview him at the embassy which he and/or his hosts thwarted. Read from para 49 bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2018/B3.html
– Lag
Apr 15 at 14:29
|
show 9 more comments
12
@GraySheep no, they didn't - there were never any charges from Sweden to begin with, just an European Arrest Warrant. This is because the Swedish judicial system requires that the suspect be charged in person at an interview, they cannot be charged in absentia. Sweden dropped the investigation and thus the existing European Arrest Warrant - but they can reopen the investigation at a moments notice and issue a new European Arrest Warrant just as quickly. Given that the victims lawyer is pushing for this to happen, extradition to Sweden is infact highly likely at this point in time.
– Moo
Apr 15 at 1:24
4
If Assange is removed to Sweden or the US, the verb normally used would be extradited, not deported.
– phoog
Apr 15 at 1:28
3
I think "dropped" has a different connotation to what happened. Three of the four investigations became time-barred because Assange was in the embassy so long and the rape investigation would have become time-barred in 2020 if the Swedish prosecutor had not decided to discontinue it because it could not proceed while Assange was in the embassy, reserving the right to resume it if Assange left the embassy.
– Lag
Apr 15 at 8:43
2
@ShazamoMorebucks - I'm reasonably sure ""or to both." indicates that a custodial sentence (or a community order) and a fine can be levied
– Richard
Apr 15 at 14:28
1
@dan-klasson "because the Swedish prosecutors refused to interrogate him at the embassy. " - for a time that is true but subsequently the Swedish courts criticised the prosecutors for that (while upholding the warrant) and attempts were made to interview him at the embassy which he and/or his hosts thwarted. Read from para 49 bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2018/B3.html
– Lag
Apr 15 at 14:29
12
12
@GraySheep no, they didn't - there were never any charges from Sweden to begin with, just an European Arrest Warrant. This is because the Swedish judicial system requires that the suspect be charged in person at an interview, they cannot be charged in absentia. Sweden dropped the investigation and thus the existing European Arrest Warrant - but they can reopen the investigation at a moments notice and issue a new European Arrest Warrant just as quickly. Given that the victims lawyer is pushing for this to happen, extradition to Sweden is infact highly likely at this point in time.
– Moo
Apr 15 at 1:24
@GraySheep no, they didn't - there were never any charges from Sweden to begin with, just an European Arrest Warrant. This is because the Swedish judicial system requires that the suspect be charged in person at an interview, they cannot be charged in absentia. Sweden dropped the investigation and thus the existing European Arrest Warrant - but they can reopen the investigation at a moments notice and issue a new European Arrest Warrant just as quickly. Given that the victims lawyer is pushing for this to happen, extradition to Sweden is infact highly likely at this point in time.
– Moo
Apr 15 at 1:24
4
4
If Assange is removed to Sweden or the US, the verb normally used would be extradited, not deported.
– phoog
Apr 15 at 1:28
If Assange is removed to Sweden or the US, the verb normally used would be extradited, not deported.
– phoog
Apr 15 at 1:28
3
3
I think "dropped" has a different connotation to what happened. Three of the four investigations became time-barred because Assange was in the embassy so long and the rape investigation would have become time-barred in 2020 if the Swedish prosecutor had not decided to discontinue it because it could not proceed while Assange was in the embassy, reserving the right to resume it if Assange left the embassy.
– Lag
Apr 15 at 8:43
I think "dropped" has a different connotation to what happened. Three of the four investigations became time-barred because Assange was in the embassy so long and the rape investigation would have become time-barred in 2020 if the Swedish prosecutor had not decided to discontinue it because it could not proceed while Assange was in the embassy, reserving the right to resume it if Assange left the embassy.
– Lag
Apr 15 at 8:43
2
2
@ShazamoMorebucks - I'm reasonably sure ""or to both." indicates that a custodial sentence (or a community order) and a fine can be levied
– Richard
Apr 15 at 14:28
@ShazamoMorebucks - I'm reasonably sure ""or to both." indicates that a custodial sentence (or a community order) and a fine can be levied
– Richard
Apr 15 at 14:28
1
1
@dan-klasson "because the Swedish prosecutors refused to interrogate him at the embassy. " - for a time that is true but subsequently the Swedish courts criticised the prosecutors for that (while upholding the warrant) and attempts were made to interview him at the embassy which he and/or his hosts thwarted. Read from para 49 bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2018/B3.html
– Lag
Apr 15 at 14:29
@dan-klasson "because the Swedish prosecutors refused to interrogate him at the embassy. " - for a time that is true but subsequently the Swedish courts criticised the prosecutors for that (while upholding the warrant) and attempts were made to interview him at the embassy which he and/or his hosts thwarted. Read from para 49 bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2018/B3.html
– Lag
Apr 15 at 14:29
|
show 9 more comments
He will likely be charged with Failure to Surrender to Bail
It is an either-way offence, meaning it can be tried either on summary trial, in the magistrates court (with a maximum punishment of 3 months imprisonment), or on indictment in crown court, which carries a maximum punishment of 12 months imprisonment.
It is likely that in his plea before venue, the magistrates court would deny jurisdiction, and so force the case to be heard in the crown court.
In my opinion, Assange ought to plead guilty at first instance, so he can be awarded the maximum credit for a guilty plea of 1/3 off his sentence. (This credit must be given to Assange)
The court will look at the [Sentencing Guidelines]2. Due to the culpability and extent of his offence, he will probably face the maximum sentence of 12 months.
12 months taking away 4 months for guilty plea, means a sentence of 8 months. A person only serves 1/2 of his sentence (yes, this is a rule), so he will only spend 4 months of that sentence incarcerated, the rest of it will be on license (in America, this will be called on parole).
For more in depth information, along with commentary, A lawyer should consult Blackstone's Criminal Practice.
answered Apr 15 at 13:23
Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks
3,1901827
2
He pled not guilty at the magistrate's court and was sent to crown court for sentencing. Since two of the items under "assessing seriousness" are "[the] extent [to which] the failure to surrender impeded the course of justice" (it caused most of the investigations against him to lapse under the statute of limitations) and " the consequential drain on police and court resources" (however many millions of pounds it cost the police), I agree that a sentence at the high end sounds very likely.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 14:48
1
According to news reports he's already been found guilty of failing to surrender by a judge in Westminster Magistrates' Court. His case was then sent to Southwark Crown Court for sentencing. Which sounds like the magistrates' court didn't deny jurisdiction, and was found guilty at a summary trial. bbc.com/news/uk-47891737
– Ross Ridge
Apr 15 at 17:07
@DavidRicherby : Why would anyone in such a situation plead "not guilty", knowing that it will just increase his prison sentence? I know some people are aiming to be seen as martyrs, but how will an extra few months help in achieving that, especially as this sentence won't be for the accusations he was originally fleeing from? For the espionage charges the USA is accusing him, I could understand him denying them (even if pleading guilty might reduce his sentence in the USA if he is extradited), out of principle. But for jumping bail? I thought he was smart enough to listen to his lawyers.
– vsz
Apr 16 at 4:08
1
@vsz He seems to believe that the sexual assault charges in Sweden are just a sham to get him into an American jail. By extension, the British court proceedings were just a sham to get him into a Swedish jail. Or to put it another way, he's special so the law doesn't apply to him. But people plead not guilty all the time: remember that every court case you hear of where evidence has been heard in front of a jury is after the defendant has pled not guilty.
– David Richerby
Apr 16 at 8:31
The page you link to says that it's only for 2years+ that you get to serve half the sentence on licence.
– cnst♦
Apr 16 at 13:47
|
show 1 more comment
He will likely be charged with Failure to Surrender to Bail
It is an either-way offence, meaning it can be tried either on summary trial, in the magistrates court (with a maximum punishment of 3 months imprisonment), or on indictment in crown court, which carries a maximum punishment of 12 months imprisonment.
It is likely that in his plea before venue, the magistrates court would deny jurisdiction, and so force the case to be heard in the crown court.
In my opinion, Assange ought to plead guilty at first instance, so he can be awarded the maximum credit for a guilty plea of 1/3 off his sentence. (This credit must be given to Assange)
The court will look at the [Sentencing Guidelines]2. Due to the culpability and extent of his offence, he will probably face the maximum sentence of 12 months.
12 months taking away 4 months for guilty plea, means a sentence of 8 months. A person only serves 1/2 of his sentence (yes, this is a rule), so he will only spend 4 months of that sentence incarcerated, the rest of it will be on license (in America, this will be called on parole).
For more in depth information, along with commentary, A lawyer should consult Blackstone's Criminal Practice.
answered Apr 15 at 13:23
Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks
3,1901827
2
He pled not guilty at the magistrate's court and was sent to crown court for sentencing. Since two of the items under "assessing seriousness" are "[the] extent [to which] the failure to surrender impeded the course of justice" (it caused most of the investigations against him to lapse under the statute of limitations) and " the consequential drain on police and court resources" (however many millions of pounds it cost the police), I agree that a sentence at the high end sounds very likely.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 14:48
1
According to news reports he's already been found guilty of failing to surrender by a judge in Westminster Magistrates' Court. His case was then sent to Southwark Crown Court for sentencing. Which sounds like the magistrates' court didn't deny jurisdiction, and was found guilty at a summary trial. bbc.com/news/uk-47891737
– Ross Ridge
Apr 15 at 17:07
@DavidRicherby : Why would anyone in such a situation plead "not guilty", knowing that it will just increase his prison sentence? I know some people are aiming to be seen as martyrs, but how will an extra few months help in achieving that, especially as this sentence won't be for the accusations he was originally fleeing from? For the espionage charges the USA is accusing him, I could understand him denying them (even if pleading guilty might reduce his sentence in the USA if he is extradited), out of principle. But for jumping bail? I thought he was smart enough to listen to his lawyers.
– vsz
Apr 16 at 4:08
1
@vsz He seems to believe that the sexual assault charges in Sweden are just a sham to get him into an American jail. By extension, the British court proceedings were just a sham to get him into a Swedish jail. Or to put it another way, he's special so the law doesn't apply to him. But people plead not guilty all the time: remember that every court case you hear of where evidence has been heard in front of a jury is after the defendant has pled not guilty.
– David Richerby
Apr 16 at 8:31
The page you link to says that it's only for 2years+ that you get to serve half the sentence on licence.
– cnst♦
Apr 16 at 13:47
|
show 1 more comment
He will likely be charged with Failure to Surrender to Bail
It is an either-way offence, meaning it can be tried either on summary trial, in the magistrates court (with a maximum punishment of 3 months imprisonment), or on indictment in crown court, which carries a maximum punishment of 12 months imprisonment.
It is likely that in his plea before venue, the magistrates court would deny jurisdiction, and so force the case to be heard in the crown court.
In my opinion, Assange ought to plead guilty at first instance, so he can be awarded the maximum credit for a guilty plea of 1/3 off his sentence. (This credit must be given to Assange)
The court will look at the [Sentencing Guidelines]2. Due to the culpability and extent of his offence, he will probably face the maximum sentence of 12 months.
12 months taking away 4 months for guilty plea, means a sentence of 8 months. A person only serves 1/2 of his sentence (yes, this is a rule), so he will only spend 4 months of that sentence incarcerated, the rest of it will be on license (in America, this will be called on parole).
For more in depth information, along with commentary, A lawyer should consult Blackstone's Criminal Practice.
answered Apr 15 at 13:23
Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks
3,1901827
He will likely be charged with Failure to Surrender to Bail
It is an either-way offence, meaning it can be tried either on summary trial, in the magistrates court (with a maximum punishment of 3 months imprisonment), or on indictment in crown court, which carries a maximum punishment of 12 months imprisonment.
It is likely that in his plea before venue, the magistrates court would deny jurisdiction, and so force the case to be heard in the crown court.
In my opinion, Assange ought to plead guilty at first instance, so he can be awarded the maximum credit for a guilty plea of 1/3 off his sentence. (This credit must be given to Assange)
The court will look at the [Sentencing Guidelines]2. Due to the culpability and extent of his offence, he will probably face the maximum sentence of 12 months.
12 months taking away 4 months for guilty plea, means a sentence of 8 months. A person only serves 1/2 of his sentence (yes, this is a rule), so he will only spend 4 months of that sentence incarcerated, the rest of it will be on license (in America, this will be called on parole).
For more in depth information, along with commentary, A lawyer should consult Blackstone's Criminal Practice.
answered Apr 15 at 13:23
Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks
3,1901827
edited Apr 15 at 14:12
answered Apr 15 at 13:23
Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks
3,1901827
answered Apr 15 at 13:23
Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks
3,1901827
answered Apr 15 at 13:23
Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks
3,1901827
3,1901827
2
He pled not guilty at the magistrate's court and was sent to crown court for sentencing. Since two of the items under "assessing seriousness" are "[the] extent [to which] the failure to surrender impeded the course of justice" (it caused most of the investigations against him to lapse under the statute of limitations) and " the consequential drain on police and court resources" (however many millions of pounds it cost the police), I agree that a sentence at the high end sounds very likely.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 14:48
1
According to news reports he's already been found guilty of failing to surrender by a judge in Westminster Magistrates' Court. His case was then sent to Southwark Crown Court for sentencing. Which sounds like the magistrates' court didn't deny jurisdiction, and was found guilty at a summary trial. bbc.com/news/uk-47891737
– Ross Ridge
Apr 15 at 17:07
@DavidRicherby : Why would anyone in such a situation plead "not guilty", knowing that it will just increase his prison sentence? I know some people are aiming to be seen as martyrs, but how will an extra few months help in achieving that, especially as this sentence won't be for the accusations he was originally fleeing from? For the espionage charges the USA is accusing him, I could understand him denying them (even if pleading guilty might reduce his sentence in the USA if he is extradited), out of principle. But for jumping bail? I thought he was smart enough to listen to his lawyers.
– vsz
Apr 16 at 4:08
1
@vsz He seems to believe that the sexual assault charges in Sweden are just a sham to get him into an American jail. By extension, the British court proceedings were just a sham to get him into a Swedish jail. Or to put it another way, he's special so the law doesn't apply to him. But people plead not guilty all the time: remember that every court case you hear of where evidence has been heard in front of a jury is after the defendant has pled not guilty.
– David Richerby
Apr 16 at 8:31
The page you link to says that it's only for 2years+ that you get to serve half the sentence on licence.
– cnst♦
Apr 16 at 13:47
|
show 1 more comment
2
He pled not guilty at the magistrate's court and was sent to crown court for sentencing. Since two of the items under "assessing seriousness" are "[the] extent [to which] the failure to surrender impeded the course of justice" (it caused most of the investigations against him to lapse under the statute of limitations) and " the consequential drain on police and court resources" (however many millions of pounds it cost the police), I agree that a sentence at the high end sounds very likely.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 14:48
1
According to news reports he's already been found guilty of failing to surrender by a judge in Westminster Magistrates' Court. His case was then sent to Southwark Crown Court for sentencing. Which sounds like the magistrates' court didn't deny jurisdiction, and was found guilty at a summary trial. bbc.com/news/uk-47891737
– Ross Ridge
Apr 15 at 17:07
@DavidRicherby : Why would anyone in such a situation plead "not guilty", knowing that it will just increase his prison sentence? I know some people are aiming to be seen as martyrs, but how will an extra few months help in achieving that, especially as this sentence won't be for the accusations he was originally fleeing from? For the espionage charges the USA is accusing him, I could understand him denying them (even if pleading guilty might reduce his sentence in the USA if he is extradited), out of principle. But for jumping bail? I thought he was smart enough to listen to his lawyers.
– vsz
Apr 16 at 4:08
1
@vsz He seems to believe that the sexual assault charges in Sweden are just a sham to get him into an American jail. By extension, the British court proceedings were just a sham to get him into a Swedish jail. Or to put it another way, he's special so the law doesn't apply to him. But people plead not guilty all the time: remember that every court case you hear of where evidence has been heard in front of a jury is after the defendant has pled not guilty.
– David Richerby
Apr 16 at 8:31
The page you link to says that it's only for 2years+ that you get to serve half the sentence on licence.
– cnst♦
Apr 16 at 13:47
2
2
He pled not guilty at the magistrate's court and was sent to crown court for sentencing. Since two of the items under "assessing seriousness" are "[the] extent [to which] the failure to surrender impeded the course of justice" (it caused most of the investigations against him to lapse under the statute of limitations) and " the consequential drain on police and court resources" (however many millions of pounds it cost the police), I agree that a sentence at the high end sounds very likely.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 14:48
He pled not guilty at the magistrate's court and was sent to crown court for sentencing. Since two of the items under "assessing seriousness" are "[the] extent [to which] the failure to surrender impeded the course of justice" (it caused most of the investigations against him to lapse under the statute of limitations) and " the consequential drain on police and court resources" (however many millions of pounds it cost the police), I agree that a sentence at the high end sounds very likely.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 14:48
1
1
According to news reports he's already been found guilty of failing to surrender by a judge in Westminster Magistrates' Court. His case was then sent to Southwark Crown Court for sentencing. Which sounds like the magistrates' court didn't deny jurisdiction, and was found guilty at a summary trial. bbc.com/news/uk-47891737
– Ross Ridge
Apr 15 at 17:07
According to news reports he's already been found guilty of failing to surrender by a judge in Westminster Magistrates' Court. His case was then sent to Southwark Crown Court for sentencing. Which sounds like the magistrates' court didn't deny jurisdiction, and was found guilty at a summary trial. bbc.com/news/uk-47891737
– Ross Ridge
Apr 15 at 17:07
@DavidRicherby : Why would anyone in such a situation plead "not guilty", knowing that it will just increase his prison sentence? I know some people are aiming to be seen as martyrs, but how will an extra few months help in achieving that, especially as this sentence won't be for the accusations he was originally fleeing from? For the espionage charges the USA is accusing him, I could understand him denying them (even if pleading guilty might reduce his sentence in the USA if he is extradited), out of principle. But for jumping bail? I thought he was smart enough to listen to his lawyers.
– vsz
Apr 16 at 4:08
@DavidRicherby : Why would anyone in such a situation plead "not guilty", knowing that it will just increase his prison sentence? I know some people are aiming to be seen as martyrs, but how will an extra few months help in achieving that, especially as this sentence won't be for the accusations he was originally fleeing from? For the espionage charges the USA is accusing him, I could understand him denying them (even if pleading guilty might reduce his sentence in the USA if he is extradited), out of principle. But for jumping bail? I thought he was smart enough to listen to his lawyers.
– vsz
Apr 16 at 4:08
1
1
@vsz He seems to believe that the sexual assault charges in Sweden are just a sham to get him into an American jail. By extension, the British court proceedings were just a sham to get him into a Swedish jail. Or to put it another way, he's special so the law doesn't apply to him. But people plead not guilty all the time: remember that every court case you hear of where evidence has been heard in front of a jury is after the defendant has pled not guilty.
– David Richerby
Apr 16 at 8:31
@vsz He seems to believe that the sexual assault charges in Sweden are just a sham to get him into an American jail. By extension, the British court proceedings were just a sham to get him into a Swedish jail. Or to put it another way, he's special so the law doesn't apply to him. But people plead not guilty all the time: remember that every court case you hear of where evidence has been heard in front of a jury is after the defendant has pled not guilty.
– David Richerby
Apr 16 at 8:31
The page you link to says that it's only for 2years+ that you get to serve half the sentence on licence.
– cnst♦
Apr 16 at 13:47
The page you link to says that it's only for 2years+ that you get to serve half the sentence on licence.
– cnst♦
Apr 16 at 13:47
|
show 1 more comment
The current sentence would be 12 months.
answered Apr 14 at 16:48
LoriGLoriG
21
New contributor
LoriG is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Up to 12 months. And answers are always improved by a reference to an authoritative source, rather than just being a somebody-on-the-internet claim.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 14:51
Correct: uo to 12 months for skipping bail under British law.
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 15:22
Also, David Richerby: Please note that everyone on a forum such as this is “some person on the internet” so there is no need for snark
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 15:24
6
Yes, everyone here is "some person on the internet". That's why it's important to give sources.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 15:35
The Supreme Court of The United Kingdom also known as British Law by law students and common sense
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 16:33
|
show 1 more comment
The current sentence would be 12 months.
answered Apr 14 at 16:48
LoriGLoriG
21
New contributor
LoriG is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Up to 12 months. And answers are always improved by a reference to an authoritative source, rather than just being a somebody-on-the-internet claim.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 14:51
Correct: uo to 12 months for skipping bail under British law.
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 15:22
Also, David Richerby: Please note that everyone on a forum such as this is “some person on the internet” so there is no need for snark
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 15:24
6
Yes, everyone here is "some person on the internet". That's why it's important to give sources.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 15:35
The Supreme Court of The United Kingdom also known as British Law by law students and common sense
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 16:33
|
show 1 more comment
The current sentence would be 12 months.
answered Apr 14 at 16:48
LoriGLoriG
21
New contributor
LoriG is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
The current sentence would be 12 months.
answered Apr 14 at 16:48
LoriGLoriG
21
New contributor
LoriG is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Apr 14 at 16:48
LoriGLoriG
21
New contributor
LoriG is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Apr 14 at 16:48
LoriGLoriG
21
answered Apr 14 at 16:48
LoriGLoriG
21
21
New contributor
LoriG is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
LoriG is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
LoriG is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Up to 12 months. And answers are always improved by a reference to an authoritative source, rather than just being a somebody-on-the-internet claim.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 14:51
Correct: uo to 12 months for skipping bail under British law.
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 15:22
Also, David Richerby: Please note that everyone on a forum such as this is “some person on the internet” so there is no need for snark
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 15:24
6
Yes, everyone here is "some person on the internet". That's why it's important to give sources.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 15:35
The Supreme Court of The United Kingdom also known as British Law by law students and common sense
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 16:33
|
show 1 more comment
1
Up to 12 months. And answers are always improved by a reference to an authoritative source, rather than just being a somebody-on-the-internet claim.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 14:51
Correct: uo to 12 months for skipping bail under British law.
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 15:22
Also, David Richerby: Please note that everyone on a forum such as this is “some person on the internet” so there is no need for snark
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 15:24
6
Yes, everyone here is "some person on the internet". That's why it's important to give sources.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 15:35
The Supreme Court of The United Kingdom also known as British Law by law students and common sense
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 16:33
1
1
Up to 12 months. And answers are always improved by a reference to an authoritative source, rather than just being a somebody-on-the-internet claim.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 14:51
Up to 12 months. And answers are always improved by a reference to an authoritative source, rather than just being a somebody-on-the-internet claim.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 14:51
Correct: uo to 12 months for skipping bail under British law.
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 15:22
Correct: uo to 12 months for skipping bail under British law.
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 15:22
Also, David Richerby: Please note that everyone on a forum such as this is “some person on the internet” so there is no need for snark
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 15:24
Also, David Richerby: Please note that everyone on a forum such as this is “some person on the internet” so there is no need for snark
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 15:24
6
6
Yes, everyone here is "some person on the internet". That's why it's important to give sources.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 15:35
Yes, everyone here is "some person on the internet". That's why it's important to give sources.
– David Richerby
Apr 15 at 15:35
The Supreme Court of The United Kingdom also known as British Law by law students and common sense
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 16:33
The Supreme Court of The United Kingdom also known as British Law by law students and common sense
– LoriG
Apr 15 at 16:33
|
show 1 more comment
protected by feetwet♦ Apr 15 at 19:57
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
