What Does Gas Have In Common With Potatoes?

Every now and then some idiot will tell you that schools should…

A Dying Breed: Young Voters and the LNP

The Liberal-National COALition has had, to put it lightly, a bad time…

Please don't ask the LNP about their future…

"Had I been asked about these matters at the time, I would…

Baguette Listings: Why Food is Politics

On November 30, the French baguette was formally added to the United…

Get out of the gutter

By 2353NM You may not have heard of Mike Rinder. A Scientologist for…

The Raider Spirit: The Unveiling of the B-21

The US military industrial complex has made news with another eye-wateringly expensive…

Two men found dead on the Moon

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 17 mission -…

Whither Constitutional Change?

Within a very short space of time, we are going to be…

«
»
Facebook

Rotten Rulings: Julian Assange and the UK Supreme Court

Julian Assange, even as he is being judicially and procedurally tormented, has braved every legal hoop in his effort to avoid extradition to the United States. Kept and caged in Belmarsh throughout this farce of judicial history, he risks being extradited to face 18 charges, 17 based on the US Espionage Act of 1917.

District Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser initially ruled on January 4, 2021 against the US, finding that Assange would be at serious risk of suicide given the risk posed by Special Administrative Measures and the possibility that he would end his days in the ADX Florence supermax facility. It took little to read between the lines: the US prison system would do away with Assange; to extradite him would be oppressive within the meaning of the US-UK Extradition Treaty.

The US Department of Justice appealed to the High Court of England and Wales, citing a range of implausible arguments. Baraitser, they argued, could have sought reassurances from the prosecutors about Assange’s welfare. A number of diplomatic reassurances were duly offered after the fact. Assange would not be subjected to SAMs, or spend his time in the supermax facility. Adequate medical attention to mitigate the risk of suicide would also be provided. Just to sweeten matters, the publisher would be able to serve the post-trial and post-appeal phase of his sentence in Australia.

Every one of these undertakings was served with a leaden caveat. Everything was dependent on how Assange would behave in captivity, leaving it to the authorities to decide on whether to honour such undertakings. Given that the US authorities have previously instigated surveillance operations against Assange while he was in the Ecuadorian embassy, and contemplated his possible poisoning and abduction, such undertakings sounded crudely counterfeit.

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Ian Burnett, and Lord Justice Timothy Holroyde, in their December 2021 decision, ate from the hands of the US prosecution. They 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 evident “basis for assuming that the USA has not given the assurances in good faith.” It followed that Assange’s suicide risk would be minimised – he had, the judges reasoned, little to worry about. He would not be subjected to SAMs or be sent to ADX Florence.

Assange’s legal team made several formidable arguments, suggesting that the US prosecution had inappropriately introduced fresh evidence against an adverse ruling “in order to repair holes identified” in their case. Natural justice issues were also at stake given the timing of the move to provide assurances at such late stage. There were also issues with the “legality of a requirement on judges to call for reassurances rather than proceeding to order discharge.”

The defence readied themselves for an appeal. In a short ruling on January 24, Lord Burnett kept the grounds of the appeal to the UK Supreme Court anaemically thin. “Assurances [over treatment] are at the heart of many extradition proceedings.” The question left facing the Supreme Court was a lonely one: “In what circumstances can an appellate court receive assurances from a requesting state which were not before the court at first instance in extradition proceedings.” This did not even consider the point that diplomatic assurances are not legal considerations but political undertakings to be modified and broken.

Other public interest grounds were also excluded. No mention of press freedom. No mention of the role played by the CIA, the dangers facing Assange of ill-treatment in the US prison system, or risks to his mental health. There was nothing about the fact that the prosecution case is wretchedly shoddy, built upon the fabricated testimony of Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson, famed conman, convict and trickster. This was an appeal encumbered with the serious prospect of failure.

Despite this, Assange’s partner, Stella Moris, was initially confident that the High Court had done enough, certifying that “we had raised a point of law of general public importance and that the Supreme Court had good grounds to hear this appeal.”

On March 14, Moris and others of same mind were roundly disabused. The Supreme Court comprising Lord Reed, Lord Hodge and Lord Briggs, were curt in dismissal. In the words of the Deputy Support Registrar, “The Court ordered that permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable point of law.”

Birnberg Peirce Solicitors, the firm representing Assange, expressed “regret that the opportunity has not been taken to consider the troubling circumstances in which Requesting States can provide caveated guarantees after the conclusion of a full evidence hearing.” In the matter of Assange, “the Court found that there was a real risk of prohibited treatment in the event of his onward extradition.”

Dismay at the decision was expressed by Amnesty International’s Deputy Research Director for Europe, Julia Hall. “The Supreme Court has missed an opportunity to clarify the UK’s acceptance of deeply flawed diplomatic assurances against torture. Such assurances are inherently unreliable and leave people at risk of severe abuse upon extradition or other transfer.”

The next stage in this diabolical torment of the WikiLeaks founder involves remitting the case to Westminster Magistrates’ Court, which will only serve a ceremonial role in referring the decision to the Home Secretary, Priti Patel. Only the most starry-eyed optimists will expect extradition to be barred. (Patel is fixated with proposed changes to the UK Official Secrets Act that will expansively criminalise journalists and whistleblowers who publish classified information.) The defence will do their best in submissions to Patel ahead of the decision, but it is likely that they will have to seek judicial review.

In the likely event of Patel’s approval, the defence may make a freedom of press argument, though this is by no means a clear run thing. It will still be up to the higher courts as to whether they would be willing to grant leave to hear further arguments. Whichever way the cards fall, this momentous, torturous journey of paperwork, briefs, lawyers, and prison will continue to sap life and cause grief.

 

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

 910 total views,  2 views today

8 comments

Login here Register here
  1. Douglas Pritchard

    Call me cynical, but Julian knows something really big that the rest of us do not know, but would show both USA and UK in a poor light.
    We know of the lies that got US into a procession of conflicts, and the corrupt way that the CIA goes about its business, and it has to top that.
    When WTC7 fell on 9/11 it housed the HQ of the US secret service, which sounds like the shady sort of outfit that does shocking stuff that Julian knows about, and he is not on their pay roll.
    His detention simply reinforces our suspicion that these governments cross the line of human rights, and are super vindictive when this is revealed.

  2. New England Cocky

    Free Julian Assange IMMEDIATELY!!! It is not a crime to identify war crimes and the perpetrators as war criminals even if the evidence suggests that successive POTUS are included among the war criminals.

  3. Jack Cade

    I am a dual citizen – I have an Australian passport and an English passport. Each of those passports means I owe allegiance to two countries which are absolutely, utterly without honour.

  4. paul walter

    Cannot comment. Too depressing.

  5. Terence Mills

    Let’s just have another look at the Extradition Act operating between the US and the UK, upon which the original determination was made regarding Assange’s health. The judge took into account the provisions of section 91 of the act and after having received expert medical and psychiatric evidence she found that Assange’s “physical or mental condition [of the person] is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him”.

    That’s it, straight out of the act that governs extradition between the UK and the USA, section 91 :

    91 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 determination to (a) order the person’s discharge

    The USA then came back and argued that they would look after him in a high security facility or even have him locked up in Australia.

    Now, we are told that there is no more need for discussion.

    But, wait a minute we still have the health professionals whose opinions have never been rebuffed so, surely we go back the the original judgement and discharge this man.

    The act doesn’t say that the judge may make an order to discharge, it says that the judge must make an order to discharge if the criteria of sectino 91 (2) are met, which they have been.

    So, release the man !!

    I am rapidly losing my faith in British justice !

  6. Barry Richards

    Unfortunately we live in a totally corrupt world,we know the British as are the Australian just tools for Americas use,and to be called upon when they need idiots to die for them.This guy will never receive any kind of justice from any of these countries.You imagine that today you can be arrested for anything America decides they want you for,with little to no proof in over 80% of the worlds countries,and we know your own country will not defend you,no matter what passport you hold.Their is only one law in the world and that is American law its tentacles like a octopus invade every part of our human life,its like a black whole once in their is no escape.All our leaders are responsible for what is happening,and unfortunately i don’t see any of these spinless jelly fish ever being able to stand up for their countries,we will always be under the rule of American dictatorship

  7. Caz

    Australia and Britain has the best governments and the best legal system that money can buy ( with US$).

  8. Ai Khan Singh

    Barry Richards

    The USA loathes dictators – that is, dictators THEY have not installed. Like Pinochet.

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: