Went like this 'Julian Assange Prosecutors in Sweden felt the hearing was unnecessary part of a Assange's appeal is to request a hearing. Given the that has elapsed, the punishment and inconsistencies with the law...the hand of justice should grant Assange's appeal and allow oral hearing with transcripts to serve as written evidence. Otherwise, ' and then vamoosh. I guess Jules could request a audio link or reason why not. I had one for a family law case during 2001, 16 days long. Huge waste of taxpayers money. Billions go to waste in the secret courts, easy money for the Laveyan/bent -lawyer. It's international law after all. And you can never trust a lawyer unless he's a President of the USA and, no matter how close they are - business is business. We had luck doing it arselfz in 1997 - see Lucy V Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea - not the case but the points of law that made it a Landmark ruling, legal history (not that you'd want to know about local Royal heroics or anything. (from winning - we now have CBT as part of mainstream psychiatry, didn't do too bad) So Jules, you could do worse than taking that advice old bean. Telephone link. If you're found guilty, sentencing to be done when you decide to leave the embassy.