Mathew Carr

Assange month: Julian’s lawyers may have 24 hours to try to prevent his extradition on Wednesday night

Reporting and opinion by Mathew Carr

Feb. 19, 2024 — At the end of a two-day hearing Wednesday afternoon, judges at the High Court in London may rule journalist Julian Assange has no more leave to appeal an extradition order to the US, where he may rot in jail.

Should judges decide to make an instant judgement in that direction, he could be on a plane in quick order…by Thursday evening Washington DC time … in theory at least. The judges otherwise may allow Assange to properly appeal. In either case Assange supporters are calling for demonstrations around Westminster Wednesday night.

Stella Assange, Julian’s wife, told me yesterday that Julian’s legal team will potentially apply for an interim order immediately in the European Court of Human Rights to prevent any extradition…it seems that application is already prepared but I didn’t get a clear answer on that.

I asked Stella could Julian now become a pawn in some kind of post-Brexit “taking back control” narrative centered on the judiciary … after decades of attacks and incarceration for truth telling.

“I don’t want to speculate what might happen. I just want to highlight the risks,” she said.

Fading case against Assange

Stella had earlier told the audience at the barnstorming “The Trust Fall: Julian Assange” documentary in Dalston, London, which premiered in the UK Sunday: “The bigger picture of course is what it means and whether this is the end of the road in the UK and what it means if it is the end of the road in the UK.”

This week’s hearings are an attempt to get judges to overturn previous decisions and it will be hard to win because of the political nature of the case, Stella said.

An application to the ECHR could stop Britain in its tracks, but the UK government under PM Rishi Sunak has been “playing politics” with its obligations under the ECHR, she said.

The Illegal Migration Act 2023 includes provisions allowing ministers to disregard certain interim measures (Rule 39 orders) issued by the ECHR regarding the removal of individuals from the UK. I will try to get the government to comment if this is relevant / might be used in this case (don’t hold your breath until we get an answer).

  1. Rule 39 of the ECHR Rules of Procedure allows the Court to issue interim measures in certain situations. These measures are temporary orders intended to protect an individual or their rights while their case is being considered by the Court.
  2. Section 55 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 empowers a UK Minister of the Crown to disregard certain interim measures (specifically those related to the removal of individuals from the UK) issued by the ECHR under Rule 39.

Show trial on steroids – why is this allowed?

“This decision can come down quickly,” Stella said. “It could be the same day. We know of at least one case where the UK has extradited within 24 hours of the final decision.” [I wasn’t immediately able to verify this.]

Here is a summary of the process so far:
US Request: In 2018, the US requested Assange’s extradition from the UK on charges related to the publication of classified information by WikiLeaks. Court Proceedings: Assange’s lawyers challenged the extradition request in UK courts, citing concerns about his health, potential unfair trial in the US, and press freedom implications. Lower Court Decisions: Initially, a UK court blocked the extradition in 2020 due to concerns about Assange’s mental health and potential mistreatment in the US prison system. However, this decision was appealed by the US. High Court Approval: In December 2021, the UK High Court overturned the lower court’s decision and ruled in favor of extradition, albeit with assurances from the US regarding Australian-born Assange’s treatment. Home Secretary’s Approval: Following the High Court’s decision, the final authority to approve the extradition rested with the UK Home Secretary. In June 2022, then-Home Secretary Priti Patel signed the order authorizing Assange’s extradition to the US. [Updated documents linked above and below for both sides of the case]

At stake for the US and the UK are also their relationships with key-ally in Asia, my home country of Australia.

Upshot: In normal times I would say the chance of the UK judiciary rushing this is small … because so much is at stake.

Yet the point of show trials is political point scoring …and election years in the UK and the US will stoke that impulse. The UK has been behaving like the USA’s butler a lot lately – in this case serving up some theatrical political meat, perhaps?

Britain is also finalising its membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans Pacific Partnership, a massive trade agreement in which Australia already has membership.

Britain may not want to interrupt its progress there, given it’s arguably in recession and needs to boost exports. This trade element is relevant because the boundaries between the judiciary and state seems to have blurred in multiple jurisdictions around the world the past few years.

In banking, for instance, executives seem to do a lot worse than the following and get wrist slaps and fines from billions of dollars in ill-gotten gains. They don’t get thrown in prison:

Assange’s big crimes

According to the charging document (see above — I added emphasis to showcase a portion of the enormous bad behavior) …

“Assange and others at WikiLeaks recruited and agreed with hackers to commit computer intrusions to benefit WikiLeaks. Since the early days of WikiLeaks, Assange has spoken at hacking conferences to tout his own history as a “famous teenage hacker in Australia” and to encourage others to hack to obtain information for WikiLeaks.  In 2009, for instance, Assange told the Hacking At Random conference that WikiLeaks had obtained nonpublic documents from the Congressional Research Service by exploiting “a small vulnerability” inside the document distribution system of the United States Congress, and then asserted that “[t]his is what any one of you would find if you were actually looking.””

Meantime the USA was failing to regulate the tech, banking, intelligence and fossil-fuel industries properly and it was effectively overseeing the hacking of the lives of billions of people around the world. Wrongdoing is still rife in the tech industry and workers pointing it out are being ignored and victimized.

More than half of software developers suspect wrongdoing at work; 75% receive retaliation for speaking out

My opinion is Julian Assange should be freed, perhaps with one of these Apple-watch shaped tags in Australia (below)…if necessary.

The judiciary can make Wednesday afternoon around British Parliament an angry protest or a celebration of justice. It’s a stark choice.

Pic from the Daily Mail:

NOTES

I asked Google Gemini this question below and the answer is worth reading

Does the UK need to heed orders of the European Court of Human Rights?

🚀

[I left this picture of a rocket in the story — a gift from Google — because this case is already a rocket for authoritarian rule and erosion of free speech and human rights.]

The relationship between the UK and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is complex and currently undergoing significant changes. Here’s a breakdown of the situation:

Previously:

  • The UK, as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), was legally obligated to comply with rulings and judgments of the ECHR.
  • UK courts were required to consider ECHR decisions and, in most cases, implement them.

Currently:

  • Following Brexit, the UK is no longer bound by EU law, which previously incorporated the ECHR.
  • However, the UK remains a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the ECHR.
  • The Human Rights Act 1998 is still in effect within UK law, requiring domestic courts to consider relevant ECHR judgments.

However, there are recent developments with potential implications:

  • The UK government has passed the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which include provisions allowing ministers to disregard certain interim measures (Rule 39 orders) issued by the ECtHR regarding the removal of individuals from the UK.
  • This has sparked controversy and raised questions about the UK’s continued commitment to the ECHR.

So, the answer to your question is not straightforward:

  • Legally: The UK is no longer directly bound by ECHR rulings, but the Human Rights Act still influences domestic courts.
  • Politically: The UK government’s recent actions indicate a potential move towards limiting the ECtHR’s influence on certain matters.

The future of the UK’s relationship with the ECtHR remains uncertain and subject to ongoing debate. It’s important to follow developments and consult reliable sources for the latest information and analysis.

Here are some helpful resources:

Remember, this is a complex issue with various perspectives. It’s crucial to approach it with nuance and seek information from reliable sources to form your own informed opinion.

Swapping and changing ministers

Alex Chalk (Wikipedia) …Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

It’s about the kids

AI helped my research

2 comments

Leave a Reply