No charges ever pressed: Assange marks three years of UK detention

[struggle4progress]

294. Assange's lawyer Hurtig testified at Belmarsh that he was told on 15 September 2010

(in response to his direct question to the prosecutor) that nothing then prevented Assange from leaving the country. Beyond this point in his testimony, Hurtig demonstrably (and admittedly) misinformed the court at Belmarsh, claiming he never knew, before Assange left the country (on or about 27 September 2010), that the prosecutor sought further contact with Assange. In fact, it was shown, by the prosecution authority, that the prosecutor had contacted Hurtig on 22 September 2010 to arrange an interview with Assange for 28 September 2010, and Hurtig eventually admitted his testimony had been incorrect and misleading:

He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact him. A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying “I have not talked to my client since I talked to you”. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700” ... To have the full flavour it may be necessary to consider the transcript in full. In summary the lawyer was unable to tell me what attempts he made to contact his client, and whether he definitely left a message. It was put that he had a professional duty to tell his client of the risk of detention. He did not appear to accept that the risk was substantial or the need to contact his client was urgent. He said “I don’t think I left a message warning him” (about the possibility of arrest). He referred to receiving a text from Ms Ny at 09.11 on 27th September, the day his client left Sweden.
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons

The Belmarsh record thus documents that Assange's lawyer, a week before Assange left Sweden, had been contacted by the prosecutor for further investigation and was aware that Assange could be detained at any time. Since Hurtig misrepresented the court regarding various facts around this particular point, his credibility is somewhat reduced, and his other claims need not be taken uncritically at face value