The High Court of Justice in the United Kingdom agreed to hear the
United States government’s appeal in the extradition case against
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange but on limited grounds.
According
to Stella Moris, who is Assange’s partner, the High Court rejected the
efforts of the U.S. government to “second guess the magistrates’
conclusions on medical and expert evidence.”
No date was
immediately set for a hearing on the appeal, and it was unclear whether
the High Court had considered the request by Assange’s legal team for a
cross-appeal.
The Dissenter reviewed the appeal submissions, which are not publicly available.
On
behalf of the U.S. government, the Crown Prosecution Service challenged
District Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s decision to oppose extradition
on account of Assange’s “medical condition.”
Prosecutors
contended the judge made errors of law when determining whether it would
be oppressive to approve his extradition. They also insisted the judge
should have notified the U.S. government of her “provisional view” so
they could offer her “assurances” to alleviate her concerns.
Furthermore,
prosecutors maintained the judge should have disqualified defense
psychiatrist Professor Michael Kopelman, whose assessment and testimony
on Assange played a crucial part in her decision.
Attorneys for
Assange countered claims that the Crown Prosecution Service put forward
in the appeal, maintaining Baraitser did not commit an error when she
concluded Assange’s “suicidal impulses” would come from his “psychiatric
condition” and would not be “his own voluntary act.”
Regarding
the argument that the judge was wrong to favor Kopelman’s evidence,
Assange’s legal team asserted, “This attack totally fails to recognize
the entitlement of the primary decision maker to reach her own decision
on the weight to be attached to the expert evidence of the defense on
the one hand and the prosecution experts on the other.”
The High
Court apparently agreed Baraitser was well within her right to consider
what weight to attach to evidence from each of the medical
professionals.
Prosecutors offered the High Court “assurances”
that were never put forward during or prior to the extradition trial.
They suggested the U.S. government would not impose special
administrative measures (SAMs) against Assange in pretrial confinement
or in prison if he was convicted, though they did not say they would not
hold him in administrative segregation or other forms of isolation.
Assange
“will receive clinical and psychological treatment as is recommended by
a qualified treating clinician employed or retained by the prison,”
where he is held, the prosecutors added.
The prosecutors claimed
Assange would not be imprisoned at ADX Florence in Colorado, a supermax
prison, but they included a caveat that left open the possibility that
he could be sent to the facility if he committed a “future act” that met
the “test for designation.”
Significantly, the prosecutors tried to salvage the extradition case
by agreeing to allow Assange to apply for prisoner transfer to Australia
under the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced
Persons.” The U.S. government would “consent to the transfer.”
Assange’s
legal team bristled at this offer. “They had every opportunity to offer
such an assurance at the extradition hearing, since the relevant
Council of Europe treaty has been in operation for many years.” But the
U.S. government did not offer this assurance so it could be tested
during the extradition trial and before the judge issued her decision.
“Such
a transfer under the specific provisions of the treaty could not take
place until the conclusion of the trial and all appellate processes,
which are obviously likely to be very prolonged,” the defense replied.
“In the meantime, Mr. Assange would be detained in the conditions of
isolation identified by the defense expert witnesses—and in any event—in
an alien and hostile environment far from his family.”
It was
not immediately clear how the High Court responded to the “assurances”
put forward by the U.S. government well after the extradition request
was litigated in September 2020.
Moris spoke to the press outside
the High Court after the decision. She had visited Assange at the
Belmarsh high-security prison in the morning.
“The U.S. government should have accepted the magistrates’ court’s decision. Instead, it keeps this case going,” Moris declared.
She contended the case is falling apart because the U.S. Justice Department’s key witness, Siggi Thordarson, “admits he lied in exchange for immunity from U.S. prosecutors.”
“The lawyers of Julian were spied on. Their offices were broken into.
Even our six-month-old boy was targeted while he was in the [Ecuador]
embassy, and now the High Court has limited the grounds on which they
are allowed to appeal,” Moris added.
“[Attorney General] Merrick
Garland has egg on his face because of the decision to use a witness
that perjured himself in order to try to imprison Julian and keep him
imprisoned.”
Asked about Assange’s condition, Moris shared that
he is “very unwell” and described Belmarsh as a horrible place. She
mentioned that another prisoner recently committed suicide.
“It’s
a daily struggle. He won his case in January. Why is he even in prison?
Why is he even being prosecuted? There is no legal case against him,”
Moris concluded.