UK Supreme Court refuses permission to appeal in Assange extradition. The case now moves to UK Home Secretary Priti Patel to authorize the extradition. Julian Assange’s solicitors Birnberg Peirce statement on Supreme Court Decision: We will keep you updated…
UK Supreme Court refuses permission to appeal in Assange extradition. The case now moves to UK Home Secretary Priti Patel to authorize the extradition.
WikiLeaks editor and publisher Julian Assange is facing a 175 year sentence for publishing truthful information in the public interest.
Julian Assange is being sought by the current US administration for publishing US government documents which exposed war crimes and human rights abuses. The politically motivated charges represent an unprecedented attack on press freedom and the public’s right to know – seeking to criminalise basic journalistic activity.
If convicted Julian Assange faces a sentence of 175 years, likely to be spent in extreme isolation.
The UN working group on arbitrary detention issued a statement saying that “the right of Mr. Assange to personal liberty should be restored”.
Massimo Moratti of Amnesty International has publicly stated on their website that, “Were Julian Assange to be extradited or subjected to any other transfer to the USA, Britain would be in breach of its obligations under international law.”
Human Rights Watch published an article saying, “The only thing standing between an Assange prosecution and a major threat to global media freedom is Britain. It is urgent that it defend the principles at risk.”
The NUJ has stated that the “US charges against Assange pose a huge threat, one that could criminalise the critical work of investigative journalists & their ability to protect their sources”.
I am not British, but I was told the Supreme Court was especially created around the Falkland War and staffed with political appointees to overrule a politically inopportune decision by what had been the highest court in the UK until that time for decades.
And it has been used as such a political tool ever since.
Well the thing is in this case there was clealry a point of law that is of general interest, and that concerns other people as well:
Can a state (the US) give “diplomatic assurances” (that they will not torture Assange, unless… ) after a decision of justice was taken, in order to invalidate it? In a context where the defendant couldn’t have access to these insurances to be able to properly invalidate them with the use of expert witnesses in first instance?
By claiming that this was NOT a point of law justifying a supreme court appeal, the court implicitly allows the US (and other countries) to “keep their cards to their chest” and not disclose their arguments in first instance extradition procedures to bypass the contradictory procedure, waiting to eventually lose the case to disclose diplomatic assurances…
This is a major blow for whoever still believed in the UK court system, and maybe in “justice” at large in the UK. As they say there: “disgraceful!”… :(
Sadly this was a foregone conclusion for anyone that knows a bit about the history of the UK Supreme Court 😓
context pls?
I don’t doubt that uk supreme court is a shitty organisation, just curious for some prior examples 🤔
I am not British, but I was told the Supreme Court was especially created around the Falkland War and staffed with political appointees to overrule a politically inopportune decision by what had been the highest court in the UK until that time for decades.
And it has been used as such a political tool ever since.
Well the thing is in this case there was clealry a point of law that is of general interest, and that concerns other people as well:
Can a state (the US) give “diplomatic assurances” (that they will not torture Assange, unless… ) after a decision of justice was taken, in order to invalidate it? In a context where the defendant couldn’t have access to these insurances to be able to properly invalidate them with the use of expert witnesses in first instance?
By claiming that this was NOT a point of law justifying a supreme court appeal, the court implicitly allows the US (and other countries) to “keep their cards to their chest” and not disclose their arguments in first instance extradition procedures to bypass the contradictory procedure, waiting to eventually lose the case to disclose diplomatic assurances…
This is a major blow for whoever still believed in the UK court system, and maybe in “justice” at large in the UK. As they say there: “disgraceful!”… :(