High Court delays decision over the extradition to US of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

by Mick the Ram

In the High Count this morning (26 March) two judges have ruled that the US have three weeks to provide them with certain assurances, including non use of death penalty and free speech rights, before they are willing to allow the extradition of Julian Assange.

If such assurances are not received in that period they will grant Mr Assange an appeal hearing. He has been in a UK prison since 2019, but is wanted by the US for disclosing secret military files in 2010 and 2011.

American prosecutors allege Mr Assange committed espionage by encouraging and subsequently assisting US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, to steal 400,000 Iraq war-related activity reports and 250,000 diplomatic cables, which his site published.

They also claimed that as a result of Mr Assange disclosing the names of his sources, he “put those individuals at grave risk of harm”. To many however, the 52-year-old is a hero who is being persecuted just for exposing American wrongdoing.

In 2021, the UK High Court ruled that he should be extradited, dismissing claims that his poor mental health meant he might take his own life in a US jail, then the following year the Supreme Court upheld that decision.

Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, his wife Stella said she was “astounded” by the decision and called on the US to “drop this shameful case”, calling the latest turn of events “bizarre”.

Still in limbo

Julian Assange has been held in Belmarsh prison in London since his arrest in 2019, at the request of US authorities. The WikiLeaks founder would have been expecting to hear one way or another as to whether he could mount what will likely be his final UK challenge against extradition.

Therefore, this decision basically just leaves him in limbo until 20 May, the date at which the judges have adjourned to. There remains a concern that any “guarantees” could well be deeply flawed and riddled with loopholes, as has proven to be the case in the past.

Judge dismisses some appeal points

The two judges – Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson – requested the assurances that Mr Assange could rely on the First Amendment to the US constitution, and that he would not be prejudiced at trial, or sentence by reason of his Australian nationality.

They did nevertheless, dismiss some of the grounds of the application to appeal, including his arguments that he was prosecuted because of his political opinions.

Dame Victoria reiterates that a previous ruling accepted that Mr Assange’s motives in publishing secret military files were indeed “political”. But she added that the argument itself “conflates” his motives with those of the US, in seeking to have him extradited.

“The two are distinct,” she said, adding: “We are content 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.”

International treaties trumped

Article 4.1 of the extradition treaty between the US and the UK says that “Extradition shall not be granted if the offence for which extradition is requested is a political offence.” However, the court said there was a long standing principle that domestic law, which in this case relates to the Extradition Act 2003, trumped international treaties.

The act prevents extradition on account of an offence involving a defendant’s political opinions. The judge though highlighted that the law says nothing about preventing extradition for a political offence. “Although there may be a degree of overlap, the two are separate concepts,” she stressed.

Wife reminds world husband being held without charge

Stella Assange reacted with astonishment to the decision, choosing the moment to remind everyone that her husband has been held for almost five years without charge. She maintained that Mr Assange remains a “political prisoner”, remarking that he is a journalist and that he is being persecuted because “he exposed the true cost of war in human lives.”

Continuing she called for the Biden administration to drop the case saying it was a “shame on every democracy”.  Earlier she had told reporters that the stress caused by the case had left Mr Assange: “physically and mentally in a very difficult place” and going as far as to say: “This case will determine if he lives or dies, essentially.”

Press freedom under threat

The risks to Julian Assange and to press freedom “remain stark”, despite the delay to the High Court’s ruling, so said Michelle Stanistreet, the general secretary of the National Union of Journalists.

“His prosecution by the US is for activities that are daily work for investigative journalists. Finding sources with evidence of criminality and helping them to get their stories out into the world, so if he is prosecuted, free expression the world over will be damaged.”

Former labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn said he believed the case had taken a “big step forward”, adding that if Assange “goes down” just for telling “some very uncomfortable truths about the military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan”, then “every serious journalist around the world is going to be feel a bit constrained, and that’s dangerous.”

European Court of Human Rights may be last chance

It was in January 2021 that a district judge ruled that Mr Assange should not be sent to the US, citing a real and “oppressive” risk of suicide. However, the judge on that occasion, ruled against him on all other issues, including the argument that he was acting as a journalist.

If he is eventually refused permission to appeal, his only opportunity to avoid being sent to the US is to ask the European Court of Human Rights to stop the flight. Only then would he have the right to a full appeal hearing again.