Julian Assange must wait to find out if an appeal against his United States extradition can go ahead at the High Court after a decision was adjourned until May 20.
In a 66-page ruling today, Dame Victoria Sharp said: “Before making a final decision on the application for leave to appeal, we will give the respondent an opportunity to give assurances. If assurances are not given then we will grant leave to appeal without a further hearing. If assurances are given then we will give the parties an opportunity to make further submissions before we make a final decision on the application for leave to appeal.”
She said any assurances from the United States would need to include “that the applicant (Julian Assange) is permitted to rely on the First Amendment, that the applicant is not prejudiced at trial, including sentence, by reason of his nationality, that he is afforded the same First Amendment protections as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty is not imposed”.
The WikiLeaks founder faces the prospect of US justice over an alleged conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information following the publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Julian Assange's wife Stella at a protest demanding his release (SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)Dismissing Assange’s argument that his extradition is requested by the US over his political views, Dame Victoria said: “The primary complaint the applicant now makes is that the judge failed to address an argument that he had exposed criminal activity by the respondent, and that that exposure amounted to a protected political act.
Louis Theroux in 'most awkward' interview ever with WikiLeaks whistleblower
“The first thing to say about this argument is that the judge accepted, as we have already said, that the applicant’s motives were political. The point of substance, however, is that the applicant’s argument conflates his motive for his conduct with the respondent’s purpose in seeking his extradition.
“The two are distinct. We are content, like the judge, to assume that the applicant acted out of political conviction, and that his activities exposed state involvement in serious crimes. It does not follow however that the request for his extradition is made on account of his political views.”
Speaking after the judgment, Assange's wife said: “What the courts have done has been to invite a political intervention from the United States… send a letter saying ‘its all ok’. I find this astounding.
“This case is a retribution. It is a signal to all of you that if you expose the interests that are driving war they will come after you, they will put you in prison and will try to kill you. The Biden administration should not issue assurances. They should drop this shameful case that should never have been brought.”
In a January 2021 ruling, then-district judge Vanessa Baraitser said that Assange should not be sent to the US, citing a real and “oppressive” risk of suicide, while ruling against him on all other issues. But later that year, US authorities won their High Court bid to overturn this block, paving the way towards Assange’s extradition.
During a two-day hearing in February, lawyers for the 52-year-old asked for the go-ahead to challenge the original judge’s dismissal of other parts of his case to prevent his extradition. Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson were due to give their decision in writing on Tuesday but that has now been adjourned.
Supporters of Assange gathered outside the High Court expecting the decision today. Dozens of people stood outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London holding placards bearing the message “Free Julian Assange” and chanting “There is only one decision, no extradition”.
Jo Robertson said she had been writing to Assange regularly in Belmarsh prison to offer him solidarity. Ms Robertson said: “I support Julian Assange, as a publisher and a journalist who made possible for the world to know the degree to which we are marching steadfastly toward nuclear war.”
At the start of Assange’s bid for an appeal, Mark Summers KC argued the US prosecution of Assange would be retribution for his political opinions, meaning it would be unlawful to extradite him under UK law. He said: “This is a paradigm example of state retaliation for the expression of political opinion.”
But Clair Dobbin KC, for the US, said the plans to extradite and prosecute Assange are based on his alleged actions, not his political opinions. She added there were “profound consequences” after the leak of documents, with some of the named sources, who had provided information to the US, facing arrest, the loss of assets, threats and harassment.
Leaker of most CIA secrets ever shared trove of documents on WikiLeaks
The hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice was attended by dozens of journalists and members of the public, with hundreds observing remotely. Scores of Assange supporters demonstrated outside the central London courthouse over both days, waving banners and inviting passing drivers to honk their horns.
Read more similar news:
Comments:
comments powered by Disqus
