Media Alert - Refugees Say "Fair Go, Albo"

A protest vigil will be held for 4 days at the electoral…

The Voice reveals the urgent need for truth…

The fact that Elon Musk has just halved his election integrity team…

Desperate refugees hold their ground

In Melbourne, there have been rolling protests by refugees outside the electoral…

Flagging Support: Zelenskyy Loses Favour in Washington

Things did not go so well this time around. When the worn…

Manus, Nauru way worse than Pezzullo texts

By Jane Salmon All the hyperbole about Pezzullo's fall from grace is…

From my "To read" list comes nothing but…

Now, how do I tackle this? Do I use the information in…

Cruel Prerogatives: Braverman on Refugees at the AEI

Suella Braverman has made beastliness a trait in British politics. The UK…

Dictator Dan Quits And Victoria Is Free...

With the resignation of Dan Andrews, Victorians can once again go to…


Off to the Supreme Court: Assange’s Appeal Continues

With December’s High Court decision to overturn the lower court ruling against the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States, lawyers of the WikiLeaks founder immediately got busy. The next avenue of appeal, strewn less with gold than obstacles, would be to the Supreme Court. The central question remained: Should the publisher be extradited to face 18 charges, 17 of which use the bricks and mortar of the US Espionage Act of 1917.

This raised the thorny issue of whether a direct appeal to that body against the High Court finding would be permitted. Ease and smoothness were unlikely to be permitted – judges are not necessarily in the habit of clearing the thick undergrowth that presents itself in appellate proceedings. Doing so would have allowed all points of law raised by Assange to be considered, a dangerous prospect for the establishment fogeys.

Defeated by District Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s ruling on January 4, 2021, an unphased US Department of Justice appealed, furnishing the High Court of England and Wales with after-the-fact assurances that they claimed Baraitser could have sought. Assange, it was promised, would not be subjected to Special Administrative Measures, or be sent to the vicious ADX Florence supermax facility. He would also receive sufficient medical attention to mitigate the risk of suicide and could serve the post-trial and post-appeal phase of his sentence in Australia. Each one of these undertakings were made subject to the conduct of the accused, ignoring the point that discretion at the hands of the authorities remains total.

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Ian Burnett, and Lord Justice Timothy Holroyde, in their December 2021 decision, did “not accept that the USA refrained for tactical reasons from offering assurances at an earlier stage, or acted in bad faith in choosing only to offer them at the appeal stage.” There was “no basis for assuming that the USA has not given the assurances in good faith.” And Assange had little reason to fear having his suicide risk exacerbated, given reassurances that he would not be subjected to SAMs or be sent to ADX Florence.

Journalist Mohamed Elmaazi, who was present to cover the short proceeding, boiled down the issue to the following: “in what circumstances can an appellate court receive [diplomatic] assurances which were not before the court at first instance in extradition proceedings.” Immediately, the more forensically minded would be troubled. Surely, the Assange case, a matter of politics and important publishing, is far more than hot air assurances floating across the Atlantic from Washington on his future treatment?

Assange’s legal team had submitted in countering the prosecution case that, “The introduction of fresh ‘evidence’ in support of an appeal against an adverse ruling, in order to repair holes identified in that ruling, is generally prohibited.” There were also “profound issues of natural justice” where “assurances are introduced by the requesting state for the first time at the High Court stage.”

The defence further questioned the “legality of a requirement on judges to call for reassurances rather than proceeding to order discharge.” The High Court bench had looked darkly at Baraitser’s failure to notify the US government that she intended to discharge the case against Assange, thereby giving the signal to the prosecutors to make those “assurances.”

In a short ruling on January 24, Lord Burnett kept it thin and narrow. “Assurances [over treatment] are at the heart of many extradition proceedings.” The High Court had refused permission for an expansive appeal but a decision as to whether the case needed to be heard by the Supreme Court was “a matter appropriately for its decision.”

This was polite language to say that the higher-ups can evaluate the case, if they choose to do so, but only on prescribed terms. Restricting the scope of the appeal to examining the purported undertakings by the US, the sort of diplomatic gloss that can only ever be taken at face value, ignores the less savoury aspects of the case. The goons of the CIA have contemplated Assange’s abduction and assassination. A good deal of the case against him is fabricated, the feverish imaginings of former WikiLeaks volunteer and confidence trickster Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson. Assange has been the victim of constant surveillance, also at the behest of US intelligence operatives.

Stella Moris, Assange’s partner, felt some reason to be satisfied. “The High Court certified that we had raised a point of law of general public importance and that the Supreme Court had good grounds to hear this appeal.” But human rights advocates such as Massimo Moratti of Amnesty International expressed concern by the pruning of the remit. The High Court had “dodged its responsibility” in refusing to permit an airing of all issues of public importance before the Supreme Court. “The courts must ensure that people are not at risk of torture or other ill-treatment. This was at the heart of the two other issues the High Court has now effectively vetoed.” Rhetorically, he added: “If the question of torture and other ill-treatment is not of general public importance, what is?”

Given that Assange’s treatment as a prisoner has been nothing short of disgraceful, a torturous measure designed to keep him confined either in the UK as his health fails or in readiness for future extradition, the issue if ill-treatment is not in doubt. To have enabled his legal team to spray the ample legal ammunition in appeal would have cast the UK legal system, and the policy of the US government, in the meanest, most venal light.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button


Login here Register here
  1. Ken

    The treatment of Assange by the UK is not only disgraceful but is absolutely inhumane.

  2. RosemaryJ36

    And the failure to take any action by the Australian Government is unconscionable!

  3. Ken

    I totally agree Rosemary.

  4. TwainandHume

    The Assange case is a horrendous and self-defeating example of U.S. hypocrisy in its treatment of a citizen of another country. And the lack of action on the part of the current and former Australian governments in regards to it should be horrifying for all Australians.

  5. New England Cocky


    Exposing war crimes that embarrass politicians and senior military personnel including successive Presidents of the USA (United States of Apartheid) is not an offence.

  6. John OCallaghan

    Julian Assange has committed no crimes against any person or any government, and is a political prisoner imprisoned by corrupt western war mongering psychopathic criminals masquerading as legitimate democratic governments such as our own……………………… Julia Gillard even sided with the U.S. and branded him an enemy and a criminal….. a true low point in her career along with the conservative leaders as well, like our current psychopath in waiting … Beam me up Jesus Scotty the Psycho Morrison!….

  7. Terence Mills

    The Extradition Act between the UK and the USA remains unchanged and the original magistrate’s decision was based on the provision of the act together with detailed expert medical evidence.

    The act says this :

    91 (3)

    Physical or mental condition

    (1)This section applies if at any time in the extradition hearing it appears to the judge that the condition in subsection (2) is satisfied.

    (2)The condition is that the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him.

    (3)The judge must—

    (a)order the person’s discharge, or

    (b)adjourn the extradition hearing until it appears to him that the condition in subsection (2) is no longer satisfied.]

    The judge made the order to discharge Assange under 91 (3) .

    Nothing has changed and the assurances that the US have given including that Assange could serve his sentence in Australia (haven’t heard anything from the Morrison government on that) are unconvincing : if detained in the USA he would still be in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day ‘for his own safety’.

    This new appeal should uphold the original finding as the provisions of 91 (3) still apply perhaps even more so with his continued confinement.

  8. GL

    Scummo and crew will say and do nothing.

  9. paul walter

    As others have already pointed out, they are going to bugger him around forever…till they have turned him into a vegetable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: