Julian Assange, the controversial figure behind WikiLeaks, has recently received a temporary stay in his ongoing battle against extradition to the United States.
This latest development comes after two judges made a ruling that allows the embattled founder to move forward with an appeal hearing, albeit with conditions. President of the King’s Bench Division, Victoria Sharp, along with Mr. Justice Johnson, highlighted that Assange may have promising prospects on three out of the nine contentious grounds presented.
The application for permission to appeal has been postponed to grant the US government a three-week window to address the pertinent issues at hand.
The possibility of Julian Assange being denied permission to appeal was looming, potentially leading to his swift extradition to face serious espionage charges. While the recent judicial ruling spares him from immediate extradition, it plunges him into a longer state of uncertainty and limbo regarding his fate.
The written judgment issued by Judge Vanessa Baraitser raises crucial concerns that could sway an appeal in Assange’s favor, emphasizing the importance of ensuring his rights under the First Amendment are upheld, protecting him from bias based on his nationality during trial proceedings, guaranteeing equivalent constitutional protections as a U. S. citizen, and explicitly ruling out the imposition of the death penalty.
During a lengthy two-day hearing held last month, Julian Assange, who was reportedly too unwell to attend, his legal team vehemently argued that he would undoubtedly encounter a “flagrant denial of justice” if he were to face prosecution in the United States on charges linked to the publication of a plethora of highly sensitive classified and diplomatic documents.
These documents were alleged to have laid bare shocking revelations of torture, rendition, extrajudicial killings, and war crimes.
Stella Assange, his spouse, expressed profound dismay and disapproval at the judges’ ruling. She openly criticized the courts for seemingly opening the door to political interference from the United States by effectively granting their tacit approval through a mere letter. “I am absolutely flabbergasted by this,” she stated.
“This case is a form of retribution. It serves as a warning to all of you that if you expose the interests behind war, they will pursue you, imprison you, and even attempt to harm you. The Biden administration should not provide assurances. Instead, they should dismiss this disgraceful case that should never have been initiated.”
Before making a decision, numerous reports were circulated indicating that the US government was supposedly contemplating extending a plea deal to Julian Assange, which would entail him confessing to a misdemeanor charge.
This agreement would potentially grant him the freedom to leave incarceration in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, his legal representatives made it clear that they had not been informed of any alteration in the prosecution’s strategy.
In Tuesday’s judgment, Sharp highlighted the absence of measures to prevent Assange from facing the death penalty in the US. The risk is evident from calls for it by politicians, lack of prohibition in the UK-US treaty, and insufficient assurances in the current statement.
On free speech protections under the First Amendment in the US, Sharp said, “Assange contends that if he is given First Amendment rights, the prosecution will be stopped. The First Amendment is therefore of central importance to his defense against the extradition charge. Furthermore, if he is convicted, he may wish to invoke the First Amendment regarding the question of his sentence. If he is not permitted to rely on the First Amendment due to his status as a foreign national, he will be prejudiced – potentially very greatly prejudiced – because of his nationality.”
The United States is under a strict deadline of 16th April to submit the necessary assurances. Any failure to meet this deadline will inevitably lead to the granting of leave for an appeal. Should the assurances be filed in time, they will undergo thorough consideration at a subsequent hearing provisionally set for 20th May.
Nick Vamos, who serves as a partner at Peters & Peters Solicitors in London and previously held the position of head of extradition at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), has bluntly stated that the required assurances from the US are deemed “fairly straightforward.”
Amnesty International and the National Union of Journalists have strongly urged the United States to immediately drop the extradition case against Julian Assange. The UN special rapporteur on torture, Dr. Alice Edwards, has also raised grave concerns regarding Assange’s deteriorating mental health condition.
Dr. Edwards criticized the court for failing to thoroughly examine the possibility of an excessively harsh penalty if Assange is extradited to the US, where he could face a staggering sentence of up to 175 years, with no less than 30 years likely.
Furthermore, she highlighted the alarming prospect of Assange enduring prolonged solitary confinement, which could potentially constitute a form of inhumane treatment that violates fundamental human rights principles.
Jeremy Nell
Known by his pseudonym Jerm, Jeremy Nell is an award-winning political cartoonist from South Africa, whose work has been featured in numerous publications, in various languages, around the world since 2005. His podcast, Jerm Warfare, in which he discusses counter-narrative ideas, has featured some of the greatest minds in the world, such as Robert Kennedy, David Icke, Victor Davis Hanson, Peter McCullough, John McAfee, and Scott Adams.
