Assange wins High Court bid to appeal against extradition to US over spying charges:
Julian Assange wins High Court bid to appeal against extradition to US over spying charges
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has won a last-ditch bid to appeal his extradition to the United States to face espionage charges.
High Court judges on Monday granted him permission to appeal his removal to the US where he is being prosecuted over an alleged conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information over the publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
The decision has granted the 52-year-old a reprieve in order for lawyers to challenge his extradition at a full appeal hearing at a later date.
It was feared he could have been put on a plane within days if his bid was denied. However, his legal team had vowed to apply to the European Court of Human Rights for an emergency injunction to halt his removal if they were unsuccessful.
[...] Hundreds of supporters gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice for the crunch hearing on Monday, with cheers erupting after the judgment was handed down.
Addressing crowds Ms Assange accused the US of "fumbling through their arguments" and "trying to paint lipstick on a pig", adding: "Today marks a turning point."
"Julian must be freed. The case should be abandoned. He should be compensated," she told supporters.
"He should be given the Nobel Prize and he should walk freely with the sand beneath his feet. He should be able to swim in the sea again. Free Assange."
The victory comes after lawyers for the Australian-born publisher, who is being held at high security prison HMP Belmarsh, asked for the go-ahead to challenge a previous ruling over his extradition in a two-day hearing in February.
His team claim that he could face up to 175 years in prison if he is convicted of publishing hundreds of thousands of leaked documents and argue that the decision to prosecute him is "state retaliation" for his political views.
Last month Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson dismissed most of Mr Assange's legal arguments but said that unless assurances were given by the US he would be able to bring an appeal on three grounds.
These assurances were that Mr Assange would be protected by and allowed to rely on the first amendment – which protects freedom of speech in the US – that he is not "prejudiced at trial" due to his nationality, and that the death penalty is not imposed.
Judges later confirmed the US had provided an assurance to the court, however Ms Assange dismissed the promises as "blatant weasel words".
Edward Fitzgerald KC, representing Mr Assange in the latest hearing, accepted a promise that he would not face the death penalty but insisted other assurances provided by the US were "blatantly inadequate".
On the issue of whether he would be prejudiced by reason of his nationality or use the first amendment as a defence at trial, Mr Fitzgerald said: "This is not an assurance at all. It assures only that Mr Assange 'may seek to' raise the first amendment."
He added: "What needs to be conclusively removed is the risk that he will be prevented from relying on the first amendment on grounds of nationality."
However James Lewis KC, for the US government, insisted that Mr Assange's conduct was "simply unprotected" by the first amendment.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2024, @03:28AM (4 children)
...for years to come. Assange is a sociopath and a rapist who did everything for ego.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday May 23 2024, @05:01AM
You can drop the rapist claim, since the "victims" have definitely declared that no rape took place. Obviously, you've never read the story, instead just skimming some of the sensationalist headlines published in the US. US citizens lack the context and the terms to describe what Assange was accused of, so they didn't even try, simply calling it rape.
The sociopath bit? Perhaps you should tell us your definition of sociopath, and explain all the symptoms that Assange displays. When I look at the common definitions of sociopath, I don't see Assange described. What I see, instead, are all the politicos who are demanding Assange's head on a platter. I can find any number of politicians from either US party who are sociopaths, and more who are apparently psychopaths. Those who scream loudest foor Julian's head are the most likely to fit the definition - they don't want the truth to be known, and they'll crucify any reporter exercising his rights under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Thursday May 23 2024, @05:02AM (2 children)
In 2017 the charges of rape were formally dropped, yet you still are claiming them as a proven fact. A person is innocent until proven guilty in most western courts. Your allegation is based on what evidence?
One of the two women who initially claimed to have been raped withdrew her claim. She publicly admitted that she had been coerced into making a false claim.
The remaining claim was withdrawn because “Nine years have gone,” Swedish prosecutor Eve-Marie Persson said [pbs.org]. “Time is a player in this. The oral evidence has weakened as time has passed.”
This sequence of events does demonstrate that smear campaigns do work, and your statement is evidence of this, regardless of whether or not the claim is truthful and can be proven in a court of law.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by loonycyborg on Thursday May 23 2024, @08:17AM (1 child)
I vaguely recall that original conflict was some deception involving (not) using a condom. Seemed kinda childish to me. I wonder how dirty that prosecutor felt who had to move the case forward anyway for political reasons..
(Score: 3, Touché) by Ox0000 on Thursday May 23 2024, @04:00PM
Probably not any dirtier than the honey pot they used to entrap him...
(Score: 2) by Ox0000 on Thursday May 23 2024, @03:57PM (5 children)
Can someone explain to me why there is a necessity to have a court case to decide whether another court case can happen?
Why not just have the ultimate "appeal the extradition" case and eliminate the "well, first we have to decide whether you can even appeal" one?
This seems like lawyers and judges creating work for themselves? Now you need 2 (panels of?) judges to decide a single thing: "does Assange get extradited or not".
This sound very "Yes, Minister!" to me: we'll hold an focus group on having a committee which itself will decide on the preliminary agenda for the planning meeting to be held by a working group which will prepare the timetable that will apply on a hearing to figure out whether or not a petition could be submitted to the deputy-assistants to the principals .......
(Score: 2) by Lester on Thursday May 23 2024, @09:24PM (4 children)
It's easy. You're going to send someone out of your jurisdiction. A country could ask extradition for a political enemy with false accusations, you want to be sure the claims against him have some base.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Ox0000 on Thursday May 23 2024, @11:12PM (3 children)
I think I didn't express myself accurately enough.
I understand the what and the why of the case about whether or not to extradite him. In no way am I insinuating that should not be happening.
But... the victory here is not about the extradition itself. He was handed a victory in _being able to_ appeal the extradition. It's that "being able to" that I don't understand, not the appeal itself, nor any other case; it's that "whether we'll allow you to appeal the thing" that I don't get.
Why not just get rid of that meta-case and deal with the appeal itself (as opposed to feeling like you first have to grant him that privilege); if they then want to extradite him, just rule as such in the appeal case. Why have two cases about it? It feels so petty to me... If the appeal against extradition itself is meritless, then rule as such in the appeal case itself and be done with it rather than having to have a whole different case to decide whether they'll let him appeal in the first place: just let him appeal and then rule on the extradition in the appeal.
It feels like a convoluted way where the system creates sufficient blocks so that everyone can wash their hands in innocence claiming "well, our hands were tied, he wasn't allowed to appeal in the first place so we _HAD_ to extradite him, we really wished we didn't but ... you know, he wasn't allowed to appeal", to whitewash a foregone conclusion and without having to take the blame for it. (Even though it didn't work out this way for the PTB)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 24 2024, @03:22AM (2 children)
My understanding is that the original court ruled that the extradition can proceed. In order to appeal that, you have to have a basis for the appeal. It's not a case of asking Father because Mother said no. So the higher court has merely agreed that there is a basis for the appeal that they are willing to entertain. It's a necessary step to a successful appeal, but very far from a successful appeal.
(Score: 2) by Ox0000 on Friday May 24 2024, @11:59AM (1 child)
Thank you for taking the time to explain. This makes sense to me now!
(Score: 4, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday May 25 2024, @01:56AM
The basis for appeal SHOULD be that the US has a death penalty, AND is unlikely to give Assange anything close to a fair trial. This country is barbaric. The problem is, the UK is barely any better...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...