What would be Julian Assange's expected punishment, on the current English criminal law?












17















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" to the Ecuadorian Embassy.



What is the punishment for that in English law?










share|improve this question

























  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – feetwet
    10 hours ago
















17















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" to the Ecuadorian Embassy.



What is the punishment for that in English law?










share|improve this question

























  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – feetwet
    10 hours ago














17












17








17








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" to the Ecuadorian Embassy.



What is the punishment for that in English law?










share|improve this question
















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" to the Ecuadorian Embassy.



What is the punishment for that in English law?







criminal-law united-kingdom






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 9 hours ago









Richard

596313




596313










asked yesterday









Gray SheepGray Sheep

303313




303313













  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – feetwet
    10 hours ago



















  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – feetwet
    10 hours ago

















Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– feetwet
10 hours ago





Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– feetwet
10 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















25














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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    @Will You can be granted bail after conviction but before sentencing. You can also be granted bail after conviction and sentencing while an appeal is heard.

    – Martin Bonner
    19 hours ago






  • 1





    @Will I was addressing your comment "otherwise he couldn't possibly have been granted bail!" - and explaining why that is not true.

    – Martin Bonner
    18 hours ago






  • 2





    @dan-klasson - The UK is under no legal obligation to accept the findings of UN working groups

    – Richard
    17 hours ago








  • 2





    IANAL, but I do believe entering an embassy is entering a different country.

    – Jasper
    15 hours ago






  • 5





    @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
    14 hours ago



















14














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.






share|improve this answer





















  • 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
    yesterday






  • 4





    If Assange is removed to Sweden or the US, the verb normally used would be extradited, not deported.

    – phoog
    yesterday






  • 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
    22 hours ago






  • 1





    @ShazamoMorebucks - I'm reasonably sure ""or to both." indicates that a custodial sentence (or a community order) and a fine can be levied

    – Richard
    16 hours ago








  • 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
    16 hours ago



















2














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.






share|improve this answer





















  • 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
    15 hours ago








  • 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
    13 hours ago











  • @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
    2 hours ago



















-3














The current sentence would be 12 months.






share|improve this answer








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
    15 hours ago













  • Correct: uo to 12 months for skipping bail under British law.

    – LoriG
    15 hours ago











  • 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
    15 hours ago






  • 4





    Yes, everyone here is "some person on the internet". That's why it's important to give sources.

    – David Richerby
    15 hours ago











  • The Supreme Court of The United Kingdom also known as British Law by law students and common sense

    – LoriG
    14 hours ago










protected by feetwet 10 hours ago



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









25














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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    @Will You can be granted bail after conviction but before sentencing. You can also be granted bail after conviction and sentencing while an appeal is heard.

    – Martin Bonner
    19 hours ago






  • 1





    @Will I was addressing your comment "otherwise he couldn't possibly have been granted bail!" - and explaining why that is not true.

    – Martin Bonner
    18 hours ago






  • 2





    @dan-klasson - The UK is under no legal obligation to accept the findings of UN working groups

    – Richard
    17 hours ago








  • 2





    IANAL, but I do believe entering an embassy is entering a different country.

    – Jasper
    15 hours ago






  • 5





    @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
    14 hours ago
















25














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.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    @Will You can be granted bail after conviction but before sentencing. You can also be granted bail after conviction and sentencing while an appeal is heard.

    – Martin Bonner
    19 hours ago






  • 1





    @Will I was addressing your comment "otherwise he couldn't possibly have been granted bail!" - and explaining why that is not true.

    – Martin Bonner
    18 hours ago






  • 2





    @dan-klasson - The UK is under no legal obligation to accept the findings of UN working groups

    – Richard
    17 hours ago








  • 2





    IANAL, but I do believe entering an embassy is entering a different country.

    – Jasper
    15 hours ago






  • 5





    @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
    14 hours ago














25












25








25







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.






share|improve this answer













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.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered yesterday









gnasher729gnasher729

12k1329




12k1329








  • 1





    @Will You can be granted bail after conviction but before sentencing. You can also be granted bail after conviction and sentencing while an appeal is heard.

    – Martin Bonner
    19 hours ago






  • 1





    @Will I was addressing your comment "otherwise he couldn't possibly have been granted bail!" - and explaining why that is not true.

    – Martin Bonner
    18 hours ago






  • 2





    @dan-klasson - The UK is under no legal obligation to accept the findings of UN working groups

    – Richard
    17 hours ago








  • 2





    IANAL, but I do believe entering an embassy is entering a different country.

    – Jasper
    15 hours ago






  • 5





    @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
    14 hours ago














  • 1





    @Will You can be granted bail after conviction but before sentencing. You can also be granted bail after conviction and sentencing while an appeal is heard.

    – Martin Bonner
    19 hours ago






  • 1





    @Will I was addressing your comment "otherwise he couldn't possibly have been granted bail!" - and explaining why that is not true.

    – Martin Bonner
    18 hours ago






  • 2





    @dan-klasson - The UK is under no legal obligation to accept the findings of UN working groups

    – Richard
    17 hours ago








  • 2





    IANAL, but I do believe entering an embassy is entering a different country.

    – Jasper
    15 hours ago






  • 5





    @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
    14 hours ago








1




1





@Will You can be granted bail after conviction but before sentencing. You can also be granted bail after conviction and sentencing while an appeal is heard.

– Martin Bonner
19 hours ago





@Will You can be granted bail after conviction but before sentencing. You can also be granted bail after conviction and sentencing while an appeal is heard.

– Martin Bonner
19 hours ago




1




1





@Will I was addressing your comment "otherwise he couldn't possibly have been granted bail!" - and explaining why that is not true.

– Martin Bonner
18 hours ago





@Will I was addressing your comment "otherwise he couldn't possibly have been granted bail!" - and explaining why that is not true.

– Martin Bonner
18 hours ago




2




2





@dan-klasson - The UK is under no legal obligation to accept the findings of UN working groups

– Richard
17 hours ago







@dan-klasson - The UK is under no legal obligation to accept the findings of UN working groups

– Richard
17 hours ago






2




2





IANAL, but I do believe entering an embassy is entering a different country.

– Jasper
15 hours ago





IANAL, but I do believe entering an embassy is entering a different country.

– Jasper
15 hours ago




5




5





@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
14 hours ago





@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
14 hours ago











14














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.






share|improve this answer





















  • 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
    yesterday






  • 4





    If Assange is removed to Sweden or the US, the verb normally used would be extradited, not deported.

    – phoog
    yesterday






  • 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
    22 hours ago






  • 1





    @ShazamoMorebucks - I'm reasonably sure ""or to both." indicates that a custodial sentence (or a community order) and a fine can be levied

    – Richard
    16 hours ago








  • 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
    16 hours ago
















14














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.






share|improve this answer





















  • 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
    yesterday






  • 4





    If Assange is removed to Sweden or the US, the verb normally used would be extradited, not deported.

    – phoog
    yesterday






  • 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
    22 hours ago






  • 1





    @ShazamoMorebucks - I'm reasonably sure ""or to both." indicates that a custodial sentence (or a community order) and a fine can be levied

    – Richard
    16 hours ago








  • 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
    16 hours ago














14












14








14







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.






share|improve this answer















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.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited yesterday

























answered yesterday









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
    yesterday






  • 4





    If Assange is removed to Sweden or the US, the verb normally used would be extradited, not deported.

    – phoog
    yesterday






  • 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
    22 hours ago






  • 1





    @ShazamoMorebucks - I'm reasonably sure ""or to both." indicates that a custodial sentence (or a community order) and a fine can be levied

    – Richard
    16 hours ago








  • 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
    16 hours ago














  • 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
    yesterday






  • 4





    If Assange is removed to Sweden or the US, the verb normally used would be extradited, not deported.

    – phoog
    yesterday






  • 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
    22 hours ago






  • 1





    @ShazamoMorebucks - I'm reasonably sure ""or to both." indicates that a custodial sentence (or a community order) and a fine can be levied

    – Richard
    16 hours ago








  • 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
    16 hours ago








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
yesterday





@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
yesterday




4




4





If Assange is removed to Sweden or the US, the verb normally used would be extradited, not deported.

– phoog
yesterday





If Assange is removed to Sweden or the US, the verb normally used would be extradited, not deported.

– phoog
yesterday




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
22 hours ago





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
22 hours ago




1




1





@ShazamoMorebucks - I'm reasonably sure ""or to both." indicates that a custodial sentence (or a community order) and a fine can be levied

– Richard
16 hours ago







@ShazamoMorebucks - I'm reasonably sure ""or to both." indicates that a custodial sentence (or a community order) and a fine can be levied

– Richard
16 hours ago






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
16 hours ago





@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
16 hours ago











2














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.






share|improve this answer





















  • 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
    15 hours ago








  • 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
    13 hours ago











  • @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
    2 hours ago
















2














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.






share|improve this answer





















  • 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
    15 hours ago








  • 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
    13 hours ago











  • @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
    2 hours ago














2












2








2







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.






share|improve this answer















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.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 16 hours ago

























answered 17 hours ago









Shazamo MorebucksShazamo Morebucks

3,1201827




3,1201827








  • 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
    15 hours ago








  • 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
    13 hours ago











  • @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
    2 hours ago














  • 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
    15 hours ago








  • 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
    13 hours ago











  • @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
    2 hours ago








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
15 hours ago







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
15 hours ago






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
13 hours ago





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
13 hours ago













@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
2 hours ago





@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
2 hours ago











-3














The current sentence would be 12 months.






share|improve this answer








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
    15 hours ago













  • Correct: uo to 12 months for skipping bail under British law.

    – LoriG
    15 hours ago











  • 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
    15 hours ago






  • 4





    Yes, everyone here is "some person on the internet". That's why it's important to give sources.

    – David Richerby
    15 hours ago











  • The Supreme Court of The United Kingdom also known as British Law by law students and common sense

    – LoriG
    14 hours ago
















-3














The current sentence would be 12 months.






share|improve this answer








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
    15 hours ago













  • Correct: uo to 12 months for skipping bail under British law.

    – LoriG
    15 hours ago











  • 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
    15 hours ago






  • 4





    Yes, everyone here is "some person on the internet". That's why it's important to give sources.

    – David Richerby
    15 hours ago











  • The Supreme Court of The United Kingdom also known as British Law by law students and common sense

    – LoriG
    14 hours ago














-3












-3








-3







The current sentence would be 12 months.






share|improve this answer








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.







share|improve this answer








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.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






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 yesterday









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
    15 hours ago













  • Correct: uo to 12 months for skipping bail under British law.

    – LoriG
    15 hours ago











  • 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
    15 hours ago






  • 4





    Yes, everyone here is "some person on the internet". That's why it's important to give sources.

    – David Richerby
    15 hours ago











  • The Supreme Court of The United Kingdom also known as British Law by law students and common sense

    – LoriG
    14 hours ago














  • 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
    15 hours ago













  • Correct: uo to 12 months for skipping bail under British law.

    – LoriG
    15 hours ago











  • 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
    15 hours ago






  • 4





    Yes, everyone here is "some person on the internet". That's why it's important to give sources.

    – David Richerby
    15 hours ago











  • The Supreme Court of The United Kingdom also known as British Law by law students and common sense

    – LoriG
    14 hours ago








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
15 hours ago







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
15 hours ago















Correct: uo to 12 months for skipping bail under British law.

– LoriG
15 hours ago





Correct: uo to 12 months for skipping bail under British law.

– LoriG
15 hours ago













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
15 hours ago





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
15 hours ago




4




4





Yes, everyone here is "some person on the internet". That's why it's important to give sources.

– David Richerby
15 hours ago





Yes, everyone here is "some person on the internet". That's why it's important to give sources.

– David Richerby
15 hours ago













The Supreme Court of The United Kingdom also known as British Law by law students and common sense

– LoriG
14 hours ago





The Supreme Court of The United Kingdom also known as British Law by law students and common sense

– LoriG
14 hours ago





protected by feetwet 10 hours ago



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?



Popular posts from this blog

How did Captain America manage to do this?

迪纳利

南乌拉尔铁路局