US wins UK court appeal, Assange extradition on cards
Published: 04:12 PM,Dec 10,2021 | EDITED : 08:12 PM,Dec 10,2021
Stella Moris, partner of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, makes a statement outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Friday. - AFP
LONDON: The US government won an appeal on Friday against a UK court ruling that had blocked extraditing Julian Assange, paving the way for the WikiLeaks founder to be sent from Britain.
The decision by the High Court in London could now see the extradition referred to interior minister Priti Patel for final approval, but Assange's legal team immediately said it will ask the UK Supreme Court to intervene.
The US challenged a January decision by a British magistrates' court that it would be 'oppressive' to extradite the 50-year-old Australian to the US justice system due to his mental health and the risk of suicide.
Washington wants Assange to face trial for WikiLeaks' publication in 2010 of classified military documents relating to its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
A two-day hearing in October saw lawyers for the United States argue that a lower court judge had not given sufficient weight to other expert testimony about his mental state.
They also pointed to diplomatic assurances provided since the January decision that Assange would not be held in punishing isolation at a federal supermax prison, and would receive appropriate care.
Approving the appeal, two judges at the High Court in London accepted the new assurances, noting they were not unusual in such cases and 'solemn undertakings offered by one government to another'.
'SATISFIED'
Summarising the decision, judge Timothy Holroyde said the district judge should have sought such guarantees herself before ruling.
He added the High Court was satisfied they ensured Assange would not face 'special measures' in the US, would 'receive appropriate clinical and psychological treatment' and be eligible for transfer to Australia if convicted.
'The court rejected various criticisms of those assurances which were argued on Mr Assange's behalf and was satisfied that the assurances were sufficient to meet the concerns which led to the district judge's decision,' Holroyde said.
The two-judge ruling ordered that the case be returned to the magistrates' court with a direction it be sent to Patel for a final determination on extraditing Assange.
If she approves, the Wikileaks' founder would be sent to the US within 28 days.
However, Assange's partner Stella Moris said they would 'appeal this decision at the earliest possible moment', calling it a 'grave miscarriage of justice'.
'How can it be fair, how can it be right, how can it be possible, to extradite Julian to the very country which plotted to kill him?' she said, referring to claims about a CIA plan under the Trump administration.
Birnberg Peirce Solicitors, which represent Assange, said in a statement that 'his lawyers will be seeking permission to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court', noting they have 14 days to do so.
The long-running case has become a cause celebre for free speech, with Assange's supporters arguing WikiLeaks has the same rights as other media to publish secret material in the public interest.
Speaking outside court, Moris said the case was a 'vindictive prosecution against a journalist'. - AFP
The decision by the High Court in London could now see the extradition referred to interior minister Priti Patel for final approval, but Assange's legal team immediately said it will ask the UK Supreme Court to intervene.
The US challenged a January decision by a British magistrates' court that it would be 'oppressive' to extradite the 50-year-old Australian to the US justice system due to his mental health and the risk of suicide.
Washington wants Assange to face trial for WikiLeaks' publication in 2010 of classified military documents relating to its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
A two-day hearing in October saw lawyers for the United States argue that a lower court judge had not given sufficient weight to other expert testimony about his mental state.
They also pointed to diplomatic assurances provided since the January decision that Assange would not be held in punishing isolation at a federal supermax prison, and would receive appropriate care.
Approving the appeal, two judges at the High Court in London accepted the new assurances, noting they were not unusual in such cases and 'solemn undertakings offered by one government to another'.
'SATISFIED'
Summarising the decision, judge Timothy Holroyde said the district judge should have sought such guarantees herself before ruling.
He added the High Court was satisfied they ensured Assange would not face 'special measures' in the US, would 'receive appropriate clinical and psychological treatment' and be eligible for transfer to Australia if convicted.
'The court rejected various criticisms of those assurances which were argued on Mr Assange's behalf and was satisfied that the assurances were sufficient to meet the concerns which led to the district judge's decision,' Holroyde said.
The two-judge ruling ordered that the case be returned to the magistrates' court with a direction it be sent to Patel for a final determination on extraditing Assange.
If she approves, the Wikileaks' founder would be sent to the US within 28 days.
However, Assange's partner Stella Moris said they would 'appeal this decision at the earliest possible moment', calling it a 'grave miscarriage of justice'.
'How can it be fair, how can it be right, how can it be possible, to extradite Julian to the very country which plotted to kill him?' she said, referring to claims about a CIA plan under the Trump administration.
Birnberg Peirce Solicitors, which represent Assange, said in a statement that 'his lawyers will be seeking permission to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court', noting they have 14 days to do so.
The long-running case has become a cause celebre for free speech, with Assange's supporters arguing WikiLeaks has the same rights as other media to publish secret material in the public interest.
Speaking outside court, Moris said the case was a 'vindictive prosecution against a journalist'. - AFP