All Pretence is Over in Persecution of Assange 188

The “judge” who dismissed Assange’s case yesterday was “Lady Arbuthnot of Edrom”, wife to Tory peer, former Tory junior Defence Minister and government whip Lord James Arbuthnot. Not to mention Chairman of the Conservative Friends of Israel. Arbuthnot was naturally Eton educated, the son of Major Sir John Sinclair Wemyss Arbuthnot. Of course Lady Arbuthnot’s children were all sent to Eton too.

At the first hearing, I was stunned by reports of completely inappropriate comments by Lady Arbuthnot, including responding to representations about Assange’s health by the comment that medical care is available in Wandsworth prison. As the official charade is that Assange is wanted for nothing but jumping bail, for which a custodial sentence is rare, that callous attempt at gallows humour was redolent of Arbuthnot’s Tory mindset. She also remarked – and repeats it in yesterday’s judgement – that Assange has access to fresh air through the Embassy’s balcony. That is simply untrue. The “balcony” floor is 3 feet by 20 inches and gives no opportunity to exercise. Julian does not have access to it. He is confined to a small area within the Embassy, which still has to function. The balcony is off the Ambassador’s office. He has been given access to it on average about twice a year. But “Lady” Arbuthnot showed a very selective attitude to getting at the truth.

The truth is that just last week the evidence was published which inarguably proves that the questioning for sexual allegations was only ever a charade to secure Assange in custody for deportation to the US, to face charges for publishing the USA’s dirty secrets. In 2013 Sweden wished to drop the investigation and the arrest warrant, and was subject to strong persuasion from the Crown Prosecution Service to maintain the warrant. This included emails from the CPS telling the Swedes “Don’t you dare” drop the case, and most tellingly of all “Please do not think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition.” That last exposes the entire pretence in just one sentence.

It is worth noting it was not the servile UK corporate media, but the Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi and the Italian newspaper Le Repubblica which obtained these emails through dogged freedom of information requests and High Court proceedings. These revealed the quite stunning truth that the CPS had systematically destroyed most of the highly incriminating correspondence, with only accidental copies of a few emails surviving to be produced in response to the FOI request.

The CPS emails devastate the official charade, which is precisely that this is just a normal extradition case. Furthermore it is admitted at para 43 of “Lady” Arbuthnot’s judgement that the Crown Prosecution Service actively referred the Swedish authorities to Wikileaks activities in the United States as a reason not to drop the arrest warrant, a fact which the UK mainstream media has still never reported and which obviates “Lady” Arbuthnot’s trite observation that there is no evidence that Sweden would have extradited Assange to the USA.

Perhaps most stunning of all “Lady” Arbuthnot opines at para 44 that “I cannot determine from the extracts of correspondence whether the lawyer in the extradition unit acted inappropriately” in preventng the Swedes from dropping the case and referring them to Wikileaks activities vis a vis the USA. Whereas in fact:

a) It provides irrefutable proof that this was never about the frankly unbelievable Swedish sexual allegations, which were always just a pretext for getting Assange into custody over Wikileaks’ publications

b) The reason she only has “extracts” of the correspondence is that the Crown Prosecution Service, as openly admitted in the High Court, tried to destroy all this correspondence, itself an illegal act. Arbuthnot gives them the benefit of their illegality, against all legal principle.

“Lady” Arbuthnot takes it upon herself to contradict the judgement of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, every one of whose members is a much more eminent lawyer than “Lady” Arbuthnot. The UK had of course every opportunity to raise the points made by Lady Arbuthnot in its appeal to the UN, which appeal also failed. “Lady” Arbuthnot’s attempt to undermine a judgement by going back and disputing the actual facts of the case, with no opportunity to answer, is, to say the least, a creative piece of judicial process. But as with her failure to pursue the CPS’ destruction of evidence, it is just an example of her most obvious bias.

“Lady” Arbuthnot set out with one clear and evident purpose, to assist the Crown.

“Lady” Arbuthnot has perhaps performed an unwitting public service by the brazen nature of her partiality, which exposes beyond refutation the charade of legal process behind the effort to arrest Assange, in reality over the publication of USA secrets. The second half of Para 57 of the judgement sets out how, following his arrest for “jumping bail”, the American extradition request on espionage charges will be handled.

I should like to conclude that “Lady” Arbuthnot is a disgrace to the English justice system, but I fear she is rather typical of it. This intellectually corrupt, openly biased, callous Tory shill is rather a disgrace to humanity itself.

188 thoughts on “All Pretence is Over in Persecution of Assange

1 2
      • John Spencer-Davis

        Craig, do you know if any lawyers or others (e.g. Justice4Assange) are preparing detailed commentary on this judgement?

        Yes, I was particularly struck by the examination and rejection of the Working Group’s evidence. The “source”‘s evidence was not challenged by the UK Government’s initial submission to the Working Group, but it surely must have been challenged during the UK Government’s appeal. Why did the Working Group still reject the appeal? Incidentally, I have not been able to find the wording of the appeal or the Working Group’s rejection of it on line.

        Kempe says that Assange had access to his lawyers during the week between his first and second applications for bail. I was unable to find any evidence of that in Judge Arbuthnot’s judgement. I might have missed it, but if he did have such access, I would have thought the Judge would have pointed that out with relish, given the tenor of the rest of her judgment. If I am right it appears to me to be a significant omission.

        Cheers, J

        Thanks. J

    • knuckles

      Like the Birmingham 6 or Guildford 4? British Law personified.

      Ah, yes. Rule of law for them, but not for me……..

      Good point, well made……..

      • Martinned

        Two miscarriages of justice in 50 years, both of them set right by the same legal system that initially got it wrong. I’m not sure why you think that’s supposed to impress anyone.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            Or the Maguire Seven, Judith Ward, and goodness knows how many others. They may well even have been the lucky ones.

        • knuckles

          Are you implying there was only TWO miscarriages of justice in 50 years Marinned?

          Also ”set right by the same legal system that initially got it wrong” insofar as the UK legal system did not want to have their bottoms spanked by the European Courts, which would have been the case if they did not rectify their DELIBERATE miscarriage of justice.

          I won’t waste my energy highlighting the very many people who are routinely denied any access to the UK justice system to such a blinkered servant. Have the paratroopers who gunned down civil rights marchers in Derry had their day in the dock yet Martinned?

          As said before

          Ah, yes. Rule of law for them, but not for me……..

          Good point, well made……..

          Go spend a few weeks working with the white helmets and clear your head. Golden rule; Clear it, don;t let them take it off you.

      • fred

        I think in both of those cases unsound and fabricated evidence was presented to the courts by the police, I don’t believe there was any evidence of the courts themselves being corrupted.

        • Squeeth


          In 1980, during an appeal by the Birmingham Six (who were later acquitted) Lord Denning judged that the men should be stopped from challenging legal decisions. He listed several reasons for not allowing their appeal:

          Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial … If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. … That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, “It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.”[92]

          • Martinned

            There’s a reason why we now have a mandatory retirement age for judges. Lord Denning was the last judge to be appointed before the age limit came in who was still on the bench by the 1980s, and it showed.

          • fred

            How is that relevant to the Assange case? There is no doubt he promised to attend court and no doubt he failed to answer to bail which is a criminal offence. There is no suggestion evidence has been fabricated against him none of the facts are in dispute.

            If a judge were to tell the police not proceed as they would with any other bail jumper they would effectively be doing the same thing Lord Denning did. It is those who say that an exception should be made for Assange who want the law influenced on political grounds not the judge.

  • fred

    “As the official charade is that Assange is wanted for nothing but jumping bail, for which a custodial sentence is rare, that callous attempt at gallows humour was redolent of Arbuthnot’s Tory mindset.”

    When Julian Assange is arrested on the charge of failing to answer to bail I think it is unlikely he would be given bail pending his trial.

    • craig Post author

      If Julian were tried in his absence, the maximum jail sentence (three months) is less than time served (two weeks plus 550 days house arrest which counts one third tariff). So there would be no further open excuse for arrest. But the Crown refuses to try him in his absence, whereas Ben Stokes who is charged with a much more serious offence (affray, maximum three years in jail) can go to New Zealand and does not need to attend.

      • glenn_nl

        I doubt very much that his time under house arrest would be counted – it would surely be considered by the court a lifestyle choice. They are not interested in genuine justice, this lack of separation between state and law is not symbolic of true democracy.

      • fred

        Ben Stokes will have to attend court at some point, he can miss preliminary hearings but the trial itself he will have to attend.

        Julian’s defence could try to get the time he spent in the Ecuadorian embassy counted as time served but I wouldn’t consider their success as a foregone conclusion.

      • Kempe

        Depending on how he was tried he could get up to 12 months but even then he’d get a substantial discount if he pleaded guilty and with time-off for good behaviour he could be out on license in a matter of weeks. He’d also get access to the medical treatment he needs and wouldn’t be at any greater risk of being re-arrested for extradition to the US than if he were living in the UK and free. All of which raises the question as to why he doesn’t just give himself up and get on with it.

        • John Foe

          “All of which raises the question as to why he doesn’t just give himself up and get on with it.”

          You are a quick thinker by arriving at this question!
          Alas, every schoolboy will tell you the obvious answer:

          Once the authorities have access to him, the secret! US extradition request will come into place and his freedom might be even more limited as in the embassy and possibly for decades.
          Everybody who demands him to “face justice” (he’s done nothing wrong anyway) should storm the barricades in case Assange indeed ends up in a US prison. None of these cowards will do that.

          • Martinned

            As I explained elsewhere in this thread, any extradition request would lead to years of litigation, and in the meantime he could simply be released on bail. O, wait…

  • reel guid

    Sounds like Lazy Arbuthnot has never troubled herself too much about reading law books.

    Just the kind of judge the Britnat establishment likes for certain cases.


    Which do you think Theresa May would like to ban first, satires or saltires?

    • Stu

      Have you considered changing your posting name to “But What About Scotland?”

      It would save time.

  • Frazer

    He has been issued with a Diplomatic Passport, Craig..what is your take on the legal position on this ?

    • Martinned

      Craig already blogged on that when it happened. (And it appears it’s the only aspect of the Assange saga where he and I are in complete agreement, IIRC.)

  • Bruce Moglia

    The pen is indeed mightier than the sword when it comes to exposing corruption in high places and it’s been an absolute delight to read your comments on this and other matters. Heartfelt blessings Craig along with hope that no litigation shill follow.

    • craig Post author

      I am rather hoping to be hauled up for contempt of court, so I can plead guilty and state that my contempt for “Lady” Arbuthnot is so deep it cannot be adequately expressed.

      • Laguerre

        Is there an issue of contempt of court in the present state of affairs? The Guardian deleted large numbers of comments about Assange yesterday, and I couldn’t see why, the case being over.

        • Redshift

          The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws (Tacitus)
          There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice (Charles de Montesquieu)
          Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. (Thomas Jefferson)
          The State calls it’s own violence law, but that of the individual crime (Max Stirnir)
          Law is merely the crystallised prejudices of the community (Auric Goldfinger)

  • Gerald

    I think “Lady” Arbuthnot rather represents the actual partisan legal system in the UK. I can imagine the quiet conversations she will have had with representatives of the security services and the FCO which would have done more to inform her judgement than anything in the legal code.

    • Squeeth (formerly K. Crosby)

      I doubt anything was said,

      As the Nazi regime developed over the years, the whole structure of decision-making was changed. At first there were laws. Then there were decrees implementing laws. Then a law was made saying, “There shall be no laws.” Then there were orders and directives that were written down, but still published in ministerial gazettes. Then there was government by announcement; orders appeared in newspapers. Then there were the quiet orders, the orders that were not published, that were within the bureaucracy, that were oral. Finally, there were no orders at all. Everybody knew what he had to do.[44]

      Gleichschaltung a-go-go

  • Ba'al Zevul

    Fact remains, he went to the embassy of his own accord. He wasn’t incarcerated by the state, he was incarcerated (as was pointed out, in rather nicer conditions than the Scrubs offer) by himself. No-one’s stopping him leaving, whatever his next few paces might involve. So that side of his appeal is utter bollocks.

    If a custodial sentence is rare for jumping bail, why doesn’t he just leave? Answer: because it’s possible, and in view of the amount involved and the attempt to defeat prosecution, even likely. Whatever happens thereafter, which certainly might involve some extremely pissed-off Yanks, that is a straightforward issue which is not affected either way by whatever murky and unverifiable dealings we may have had with the Swedes.

    • Martinned

      Indeed. Assange has successfully run out the clock on that Sweden story, so that’s over now. He’s definitely not going to Sweden, and whatever may have happened there is irrelevant for the bail jumping charge. Bail jumping is very simple: he promised to surrender himself to the court at a given time and place, and then he didn’t. QED.

  • Sharp Ears

    The eldest Arbuthnot sprog, Alexander, did attend Eton as I said previously.

    The other three are female so unless Eton has become co-ed? Craig might have to amend his first para.

    I totally agree with Craig’s remarks. This so called judgement is an outrage and an example of the rottenness of the English legal system, unavailable to the average citizen on grounds of cost and rotten to the core.

    Emma and James are well matched. May they rot in their own hell.

  • Martinned

    I’ve long since given up hope that I might convince someone on this blog with actual legal reasoning – Assange could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and you’d all rush to defend him – but let me link the reactions of some of the most prominent legal commentators on the internet.

    The Secret Barrister is secret for a reason. She/he frequently gives the criminal courts a good telling off. The account posted a whole series of tweets here:

    Most importantly:
    The (relatively short) #Assange judgment is worth reading in full, not least for its clinical demolition of the amateurish UN Working Group opinion on “arbitrary detention”.


    The judge gives a further kicking to the notion that Assange has been willing, even desperate, to cooperate with the Swedish authorities. My clients would adore a choice of interviewer and knowing the police’s questions in advance.

    • Steve

      I’m think the ‘secret’ is that they are not really a Barrister.
      Some poor fool: “I’m being investigated for a serious crime and the police want to interview me. As my lawyer, what do you recommend I do?”
      Secret Barrister: “What are you talking to me for, go tell them everything you know and don’t hold back. No I’m not coming with you.”

  • Mike McGregor

    Assange has spent the last several years trying to evade justice. In so doing he has betrayed the friends who stood bail for him and hidden in the Ecuadorian embassy.
    It is time he actually stopped hiding, stood in front of a court and met a penalty for what has obviously been a crime.
    He could have made all this unnecessary by standing trial in Sweden in the first place. If, as is claimed, he ended up extradited to the US to face further charges, so be it. No one seems to doubt his responsibility for leaking information.

    • Martinned

      There is zero chance that the Swedes would have ended up extraditing him. If they had tried, he would have been able to litigate the issue for years, both in Sweden and in the UK. (Sweden would need the UK’s sign-off to extradite him.) Given what happened to Chelsea Manning, I don’t see how Assange wouldn’t have ended up winning either in Sweden or in the UK. If the UK isn’t sending Lauri Love to the US, they’re certainly not sending Assange.

      • Stu

        You honestly can see the difference between Lauri Love and Assange?

        Assange has massively diminished the ability of the USA and it’s vassals to make war. He is being punished for that as a warning to others. There is likely no plan to extradite him as a trial in the USA would be a disaster for the Neocons who are slowly rebuilding their capabilities. They will keep him in limbo for as long as possible for the crime of telling the truth about the nature of “humanitarian intervention”

          • Stu

            The problem is that there can be no guarantee of that and any rational person would choose to remain in the Embassy waiting for future safe conditions rather than leave and risk even a small chance of ending up in SuperMax.

            You are acting as if this is some run of the mill of the case. It has been proven many times that when issues of power are in play British justice is happy to take a step back. Off the top of my head I can think of the Saudi Arms inquiry being quashed, the High Court refusing to hear the case of a Libyan who kidnapped by MI6 in Thailand and sent to Libya to be tortured and the tragic case of the Chaggos Islanders. If you think that English Law is the ultimate arbiter in this case you are a fool.

            It’s easy to forget about but there are 44 men in cages in an occupied portion of Cuba who have been held without trial by the USA for a decade. Both Sweden and the UK have collaborated with the USA on transporting prisoners to be tortured, the invasion of Iraq and illegal surveillance. None of these parties can be considered to be honest actors by any informed person.

    • Squeeth (formerly K. Crosby)

      Show me you mean what you write by volunteering to hand yourself (and your knackers) to the US torturers at Guantanamo.

    • J

      “…betrayed the friends who stood bail for him…”

      Second time that talking point came up on the thread. Would you mind stating where you heard or read it?

    • John

      “Leaking information” on the criminal activity of a terrorist state is NOT a crime, it is an act of good global citizenship. Those who think otherwise have lost sight of ethics in a forrest of dubious legalism.

      • Martinned

        Why can’t it be both?

        In any event, I’m not sure why you think that’s relevant to a prosecution for bail jumping. (Or rape/sexual assault, for that matter.)

        • John

          Well, of course it IS both – because the law is not primarily (or even mainly) concerned with right and wrong, good and evil. Crime is defined as that which the owners of the state would punish using its coercive powers. These may intersect with what most people would regard as ethical behaviour, but only incidentally – and only when it suits the state.

          “In any event, I’m not sure why you think that’s relevant to a prosecution for bail jumping. (Or rape/sexual assault, for that matter.)”
          Well,as you well know and pretend not to know, the imminent cause of that prosecution has little to do with the ostensible case, and is rather the pretext for a distal cause in Sweden – itself a confection in lieu of a secret grand jury in Virginia.

          Legalistic sophistry is just so tedious

          • Martinned

            Leaving aside your ridiculous conspiracy theories and Marxist buzzwords, the cause of a prosecution is irrelevant. All that matters is whether he did it, or not. And in this case – unlike the rape case – he quite clearly did.

    • styx

      one can only stand trial if they’ve been charged with committing a crime. no charges have ever been brought against Assange. it was an investigation. so what “further charges”? the only reason this vendetta that wastes of millions of tax payers money is happening is so he can be bundled off and incarcerated in the land of the free.

      • Martinned

        The reason for prosecuting Assange for bail jumping is quite straightforward: Pour encourager les autres.

        Quoting the first bit of statistics Google gave me:
        [In the year up to 30 June 2015], bail was granted to 21% of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts, while 4% were remanded in custody and the remaining 75% had their case concluded at the magistrates’ courts without being remanded.

        21% of all defendants in the magistrates’ courts is a lot of people, and it would cost a fortune if even 10% of them had to be remanded in custody instead. Occasionally prosecuting a high-profile bail jumping case encourages everyone else who’s out on bail to keep their promise, which saves the taxpayer a mint.

        Occam’s razor…

    • Roy David

      ‘No one seems to doubt his responsibility for leaking information.’

      So you presumably think that, say the editor of The Times, The Telegraph or The Guardian or suchlike should be similarly hauled off to the US (and incarcerated) for ‘leaking information’ supplied and published by Wikileaks. Sounds to me like you want your news gift-wrapped and with an official Government stamp.

    • Leonard Young

      @Mike McGregor

      “It is time he actually stopped hiding, stood in front of a court and met a penalty for what has obviously been a crime”

      Which crime is that Mike? For skipping bail or for the other matter which has now been dropped (and actually was dropped in the first place before pressure was brought to bear to open it up again). Have you contacted those who stood bail and actually asked them whether they felt “betrayed”. You are speaking for them yet NONE of them have indicated any betrayal. So you are making wild guesses, quite apart from your ridiculous naivity in imagining this case has anything to do with the alleged, and now utterly abandoned Swedish case.

  • Martinned

    By the way, if you want to see laughable arguments in the opposite direction (coincidentally also on issues around bail), on 8 February the Supreme Court gave judgement in R (on the application of B) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, where the government tried to convince them that the courts had the power to impose bail conditions even when there was no power to detain. It is an utter mystery to me why the Supreme Court even agreed to hear this case, given that it (quite rightly) upheld the court below unequivocally, or why any self-respecting barrister agreed to represent the Home Secretary in this matter.

    • Shatnersrug

      Hahaha you can tell the government are in panic – Martinned and Fred have started about twenty ghost accounts all to say the same stupid thing. Problem is after Craig’s long erudite explanation of the facts coupled with his frustration. There’s very little that numpties repeating “ah the rule of law” 50 times is going to do

      I realise Craig has a comitent to freedom of speech, but he really ought to delete these silly comments.

    • J

      If you genuinely believed in the rule of law there’s problems aplenty from the last seven years alone you might sink your outrage into, except that you don’t. Noted.

  • John Goss

    ““Lady” Arbuthnot is a disgrace to the English justice system, but I fear she is rather typical of it.”

    At the moment it is a waste of time trying to change things. The best that can be done is to vote for Jeremt Corbyn at the next general election and see what can be done to relieve the likes of Lady Arbuthnot and company of their power. They are just another branch of the Gaslighting brigade. Read the voice of reason here and ignore the shills.

    Trust yourselves and trust your judgements. I am happy to name the names of those who infest this blog in dogged defence of the establishment and its disgusting motives. They include Martinned (read his comments) and Kempe (on the last thread). They do not care that a man, a good man, who revealed the evil-doings of the murderous US military in Iraq and many other news truths can be virtually imprisoned in a room because the establishment want him out of the way. (Wikileaks is the only news organ with a 100% record for fact). Instead they support this maltreatment and abuse of human rights. That in my eyes make them no better than the other peddlars of slanted information aimed at trying to brainwash those who refuse to believe government lies. They are Gaslighters!

    This is the truth. Trust me. Read it ans trust yourselves.

        • John Goss

          I would not want to see anyone executed even if they accept that they “do not care that a man, a good man, who revealed the evil-doings of the murderous US military in Iraq and many other news truths can be virtually imprisoned in a room because the establishment want him out of the way.”

          Though it speaks volumes about you and your ilk.

          • Martinned

            On the contrary, I agree with Lady Arbuthnot’s judgement exactly because that’s not at all what’s happening. If it was, I’d have a big problem with that. Our dispute seems to be about reality, not about values.

      • Squeeth (formerly K. Crosby)

        You won’t be guillotined, because that’s what rightist nonces do; lefties will treat you as something to be scraped off a shoe.

      • Shatnersrug

        Martinned, the only person who would ever guillotine you, is yourself right after the state asked you to.

        • Martinned

          Wait, are you seriously mocking me for believing that the law applies to me as it does to other people? Is the concept of rule of law so alien to you and the other commenters here?

          • John

            Whose law? For whose benefit? The law is a sate construct designed to benefit those who own the state. You seem to imagine we live in some sort of democracy?

            As a lawyer you clearly have a pecuniary benefice in this racket.

          • Martinned

            Yes, I know, a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. Like I said, when the revolution comes I’ll be first against the wall.

          • Dave Price

            Maybe it’s the ‘tinned’ in your name, but I always imagine your words spoken in a tiny tinnitus whine, like a mosquito. I think you will be safe up against the wall, unless they are using a rolled up newspaper.

  • Squeeth (formerly K. Crosby)

    “…the CPS had systematically destroyed most of the highly incriminating correspondence…”

    Did they get Graun journalists in to bash the hard drives with hammers?

    • nevermind

      yes they did apparently, best tell Martinned so he can joust waving his little finger at them.
      As John Goss already reiterate, JA has been an asset to humanity, to international truth, clarity and reform of human rights. He has shown us that the US killed two journalists and a child in cold blood without being held to account, and that the UN is a towel to wipe one’s feet on, as far as you establishment lovies are concerned.

      You are one word bending scribe not to get your teeth into that, Martinned, bit too hot for you is it? why don’t you take your comments to Emma Arbuthnot, I’m sure her ilk would welcome you with open arms, as their pet.

      British justice is dead and dusted, a whore for foreign libel tourists and squabbling rich to wipe their dirty affairs off. The scum of the earth not worth the bullet you carve for.

      • Martinned

        JA has been an asset to humanity, to international truth, clarity and reform of human rights. He has shown us that the US killed two journalists and a child in cold blood without being held to account, and that the UN is a towel to wipe one’s feet on, as far as you establishment lovies are concerned.

        That may well be true, but that doesn’t mean he gets to ignore laws he doesn’t like.

        • Roy David

          I often find that most people who have much to say about this Assange business are those with little knowledge of the case, merely treating it as a ‘black and white’ issue to be debated in simplistic terms. If they are that interested in the subject, they would do well to devote the time to arming themselves with the story from the first day Assange set foot in Sweden. As his well-respected barrister Gareth Peirce said yesterday: ‘The history of this case is extraordinary. Each aspect of it becomes puzzling and troubling as it is scrutinised.’

          • Martinned

            The Assange case was extremely messy for a long time. That’s why it went all the way to the Supreme Court. It’s just this bail jumping case that’s easy.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    The second half of Para 57 of the judgement by Lady Arbuthnot says this

    ” On an extradition request from the United States in this jurisdiction he would be able to argue extraneous considerations, fair trial and conditions of detention in the United States prison system. The courts would consider, with the assistance of Mr Assange’s lawyers and expert witnesses, whether he should be extradited. There would then be the appeal process which would consider whether the first court got it wrong, whatever the decision either way.”

    It strongly contradicts the first half of Para 57, as it lays out the process that would happen, if an extradition request was received. Far from dismissing the possibility, the process has already been considered and planned for in detail “in this jurisdiction”

    “Mr Summers says Mr Assange fears being rendered to the United States by Sweden. There is no evidence that that was going to happen. He would not have been rendered by this country to the United States nor by Sweden.”

    This really is disgraceful. In the same paragraph it says “He would not have been rendered”, and then it goes on to say, how he possibly would be.

    It’s like something out of Animal Farm.


      • Tony_0pmoc

        Martinned, I don’t normally agree with your judgement – eg your evaluation of the evidence last week re The White Helmets.

        However, today, despite the fact that in the vast majority of situations, I am against capital punishment, in your case I think you got it right about yourself today. Well done.

        Martinned – in an objective evaluation about himself:
        “I’ll be among the first to the guillotines.”
        “I’ll be first against the wall.”

        What exactly have you done? It must be something really awful.
        Confession is good for the soul.


      • ZiggyM

        “Normal legal process”
        Would that process always include spending £11.1 monitoring a suspect bail jumper?
        Given that in 2016 over 13,000 people skipped bail on charges ranging from murder, rape and GBH.
        This is not an ordinary case, and no amount of juggling the legal soot will make it one. But you probably realise this.

        • Martinned

          No, this is a high-profile case, which means that it has much more deterrent value than other cases. As a British taxpayer, I think it’s money well spent.

          • Martinned

            As a taxpayer, this is exactly what I want the police to do: Go after the rich, white-collar criminals who think they are above the law, instead of only ever picking up petty criminals who are low-hanging fruit.

        • Martinned

          Depends on which legal order you ask. The Israelis kidnapped Eichmann in Argentina, and when he brought that up at his trial, they said “sucks to be you”. (Paraphrasing.)

          More generally, it may not be illegal under the laws of country X for the government of X to send people to country Y and kidnap someone there. (Because the laws of country X only outlaw kidnapping within the borders of X.)

  • Steve Trevethan

    What are the terms and conditions concerning one state (UK) interfering with the legal procedures of another state (Sweden)?
    Why is there no transparent enquiry into absence of the e-mails relevant to this case?
    What has been done to prevent such losses of evidence in the future?

    • lysias

      It would be very interesting to know from the missing emails what precisely Sweden was threatened with.

  • Sharp Ears

    Milord’s Register of Interests and Voting Record. Register of Interests How he voted

    The former reveals multiple paid visit to Israel, paid for by the Conservative Friends of Israel, and many others to many countries. It is didfficult to decide who paid for all the trips, ther CFoI or others. There are also several RUSI sponsored trips including two to Washington and Chicago. For meets with the gangsters-in-charge perhaps.

    He did have time to admire the plants on an opening day of the Chelsea Flower Show, with Mrs Arbuthnot, as she was then, courtesy of Bechtel who are:courtesy of Bechtel who are ‘Bechtel Corporation is the largest construction and civil engineering company in the United States, and the 8th-largest privately owned American company in 2017. Its headquarters are in San Francisco, California.’. That little jolly was valued at £1,250.

    The latter reveals his adherence to the Tory mantra. Screw the poor – take away their benefits, enhance the rich – reduce Corporation Tax,. demolish the NHS – eg ‘Almost always voted against restricting the provision of services to private patients by the NHS’ and
    ‘Consistently voted for reforming the NHS so GPs buy services on behalf of their patients’. etc etc

    • Sharp Ears

      Apologies for all the typos.

      I see he was a Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council, of Grenfell Tower infamy.

      Local Councillor Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea 1978 – 1987

      I have been out and I see Craig has beaten me to it on his Lords register of interests. We have to assume that we are given the full picture on TWFY.

      Category 1: Directorships
      Director (salaried, no shares), SC Strategy Limited (strategic advice; personal clients: Babcock International Ltd) (interest ceased 31 December 2017)
      Chairman, Neuro-Bio Ltd (a biotechnology company)

      Category 2: Remunerated employment, office, profession etc.
      Chairman, Advisory Board, Thales Group (aerospace, defence, security)
      Consultant, Pure Storage Inc (computer flash memory) (payment is made to SC Strategy Ltd who then pay Member)
      Fees for chairing conferences for RUSI, 20 and 21 April 2017
      Senior Consultant, SC Strategy Limited (strategic advice)

      Category 4: Shareholdings (b)
      Neuro-Bio Ltd (a biotechnology company)

        • Dave Price

          No I think he’s saying how commendably hard she must work at home to avoid deriving any benefit whatsoever from her husband’s political and business activities.

  • Republicofscotland

    This one thread not only shows clearly how poorly Julian Assange has been treated by Britain.

    It also very clearly shows the press and the judiciary, are on this occasion, and in many other cases, that they’re not fit for purpose.

    As I said in a prior thread, the US wants Assange badly, and the British judiciary are desperate to deliver Assange to them.

    It all smacks of Britain trying to gain brownie points, from their US overlords.

    • Martinned

      As I said in a prior thread, the US wants Assange badly, and the British judiciary are desperate to deliver Assange to them.

      Why on earth would you say that? You’re usually one of the more reasonable commenters here. The US haven’t even asked for Assange yet, and if they did it would take years of litigation to sort out. (And double that if he’d actually gone to Sweden.) The UK didn’t extradite Pinochet, it didn’t extradite Lauri Love, why on earth would you think they would extradite Assange?

      • Republicofscotland

        Oh come on Martinned, I know you’re not that naive. Everyone and their dog knows why the British judiciary continue to enforce the warrant for Assange.

        It’s the worst kept secret in the world.

      • Ba'al Zevul

        Free legal advice, please. Is the crime for which Assange would putatively be charged in the US, a crime in the UK? If not, then he can’t be extradited. I guess this would severely limit the scope of the charge.

      • John Goss

        With the risk of encouraging you further the UK did not extradite Pinochet nor did it extradite Gary Mckinnon, partly on the grounds of him being a sufferer from Aperger’s syndrome. However it did extradite the poet Talha Ahsan, another sufferer from Asperger’s syndrome. I know a bit about Talha’s case – believe me the experience for him was terrible – and he should never have been sent to be shut away 23 (sometimes 24) hours a day in solitary confinement in a US supermax prison. I know something about the case and wrote to Talha in Connecticut (supposedly one of the better US supermax prisons). Do you know what? Although there was never a case against him Talha is more forgiving than I am about his treatment. You see Theresa May did it. She gloated about it. This is my country. I have to bear some of the shame. So if they chose, like they chose to push Assange’s options to the Supreme Court, have extradited him, and still would if they could.

        As for Pinochet, the extreme right wing evil dictator who had political opponents executed, imprisoned, raped, raped by dogs and all kinds of other abominations, you seem to be proud that he was not extradited. These were real rapes, not the rapes of which Assange was wrongfully accused. Professor de Noli was one of Pinochet’s prisoners. No wonder he has fought so hard on behalf of Assange. He knows what those with power are capable of doing.

  • okulo

    Some of the information in this post is extremely disturbing to me.

    It made some connections in my head which went back to some personal experience(s) I had in the period around the time of the Iraq war (~2003) and I just did a little background checking and my suspicions appear to be well founded. However, at risk of disclosing something inappropriately, I would like to run this past Craig Murray first. I have tried to contact him previously using the form on this website and have not received a response.

    I had been considering contacting Craig about a possible interview about Julian, Wikileaks and other matters as I am not an unreasonable distance from Dundee but I definitely need to clear up the matter above whether in an interview or by some private communication.

    Craig, please get back to me.

    • okulo

      24 hours later and not a word from Craig Murray or anybody else giving me a hint of how to get my information to him.

      It’s difficult to know what to make of this given the nature of the information I have. It doesn’t look good.

      The best I can think of is that there is an in group and an out group and not being a regular poster or on anybody’s friend list, I’m not in the in group. Fair enough. I’ve met you three times, Craig, and each time, despite not knowing who I was, you didn’t want to talk to me as there were more influential people around and I’m not somebody who blows their own trumpet. Sometimes, if not most of the time, it is best to keep quiet and watch other people’s behaviour.

      The worst is unthinkable and I really don’t know what to do. In a somewhat smaller sense, I feel like somebody with the missing frames of the Zapruder film but don’t know who to trust with them. But given how high this might reach, who knows how significant it is.

    • giyane


      Craig is still discussing Assange in the current post, so why not post your fears there? If he doesn’t like them he can reply and counter them or remove them. Craig is not going to trawl back through old comments, nor is he going to discuss anything about which he isn’t sure of the facts. There isn’t an in-group here. Everybody gets zapped if Craig thinks the content is offensive or likely to provide ammunition for his critics. You have to keep a weapon oiled and free from rust. The pen is mightier than the sword, but it’s still a weapon, and it still needs oiling. He won’t publish anything which might jam the works.

  • Tara Mothersbaugh

    Excellent analysis. One can only hope that UK citizens will be outraged enough to advocate for reform.

  • Trish Jones

    I call upon All Lawyers Barristers Worldwide to Confront this Evil Coruption in Court’s throughout the Western World!!!

  • Solomon Kerry

    I agree with the analysis here-in of the eminent Mr Murray.

    It has long been an indubitable fact that British Law (Crown) has multiple layers of both Justice and prejudice. The who and the why and what the “they” will do. I always wish to add balance to my view of things and whilst the former allegations against Assange are not exactly that, I believe there is coming a chance for him to reach loggerheads with the “system”. Breaches of bail are – as you note – exceedingly rare as to carry enough in the way of contempt – leveraged against the crime accused – as to warrant a custodial sentence. I would be extremely surprised if this would carry any sentence at all in any other circumstance.

    To be blunt, Assange should walk out of the embassy and face this farcical “justice” that he has been challenged with. There is the guarantee of his arrest. Then, the situation will have to be made transparent for the public. What is the UK Governments motive? If the press were to be believe, it would be that he is an exile of [oppressive] justice. Ironically, Justice that has not been meted out by the signatory requirements of the UN’s decision.

    The only way of proving transparency is for Assange to come outside the embassy. It is an extreme risk, I agree. But the naysayers and professional liars… the unable-to-think for themselves will be wrong. If it is that he is extradited to the US, he has more than enough ammunition up his sleeve in respect of what he knows. One fact we can all be certain of is that in the treasure troves of illegal actions (documented in emails still not released) will shot the ubiquitous iniquities of corrupt Western Governments. This may be some leverage, it may not. In whatever circumstance avails, I can assuredly guess that President Trump will throw his weight into the ring on a side of the self imprisoned political prisoner.

    Please continue the good work Craig in elucidating those of us who have turned away from the disgusting depths of the main stream UK press and Government mouthpieces.

  • Dr. Brian Everill

    It is with great sadness that I witnessed yesterday the total travesty that calls itself the the ‘justice’ system of the United Kingdom. Much like the authority of the UK police force that was irreparably damaged, and diminished, for the general public by the actions of that previously highly respected institution in the 1980s, with their political warfare at places like Orgreave Colliery against working people, the justice system itself in now found in disrepute to the level farce in the lip-service it proffers to serving everyone, equally, living under its corrupt and overbearing wing? In the 1980s, and to the present day, I witnessed a general shift of perception of for whom, and for what, the police force was in existence. Trust, has never returned for the police like it existed before they made clear why they were created, not for the poor, or vulnerable, but to protect the interests of the rich and elite. It looks very much as though this perceived utility has now permeated the whole fabric of British society, and can only result in a further devision of its community into a class struggle against those who appear to run our lives without our consent?

    • Squeeth

      Same here, I was a student in Plymouth during the strike but came home to Woodhouse through Mansfield, looking at buses with wire mesh over the windows. Notice too that even in the days of TradBBC, establishment lies trumped the truth when the filth attacked unarmed miners on Berry Hill? Bastados

      • Dr. Brian Everill

        And the elite class continue with their gaslighting of the general population into believing all the ills of the system are of their own doing? “Accept Austerity, after all, it is what you deserve!?” Reagan, Thatcher, Blair, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Brown, Cameron, May all nothing but gaslighters? Time for a real democracy, none of this staged pantomime for the public to make them believe they have some sort of ‘a say’ in their own future? This travesty of justice in the Assange case simply underlines the total erosion of anything that could be called ‘democracy’ in the UK PLC?

        • Marcus

          Dr Brian Everill,

          “Time for a real democracy, none of this staged pantomime for the public to make them believe they have some sort of ‘a say’ in their own future?”

          When you were a child, your parents ‘governed’ you did they not? Did they not tell you when it was bedtime? Did they not decide where you could go and what you could do? Did they not have complete authority over you?
          And you seem to think that by voting in a government, who will govern you and therefore have authority over you, that this is not real democracy? We have been falsely led to believe that democracy IS government, by the people, through the will of the people, but this has never been. People have elected local MP’s, who are nothing more than talking heads. The real power of government lies within the inner circle – the actual cabinet, who will remove party members who do not toe the line.

          Your democracy, I hate to say, is nothing more than having the freedom to vote for the choice of political parties, offered to you and nothing more. You have no say, whatsoever in the decisions that the government make, will make, have made.
          You and the rest of society, in voting for government have created the mess that we have today. Our political parties are nothing more than controlled mouthpieces of the Rothschild, crown corporation of the treasonous land mass, known as the City of London.
          Now, were we to live within an anarchy, with no government we would not be in the this situation. There would be no wars in the middle east. There would be no mass immigration. There would be no Israel, no ISIS and chaos in this world. There would be no elites, who live in this world as though it was their own back garden to do with as they so see fit.

          Our society is the mess it’s in, because people STILL play the voting game of left or right. People don’t vote in new political parties, they vote out those they believe have failed them. And they vote in another party which will do exactly the same, failing to realise that they are, as stated, talking heads and controlled puppets of a higher power.

          All organizations are infiltrated and controlled and Parliament is very much a corporation.

          • Dr. Brian Everill

            I feel your assumptions regarding what you believe I am thinking, are nothing more than staggering? ‘Voting’ can, or cannot, mean that those who do the voting have any power over their lives? Just having a vote, as in the present UK, or US system, means absolutely nothing, regardless of whether one would like to call that ‘democracy’ or anything else, and any power, that the vote might have had, in these political organizations, has been circumnavigated by the elite class beginning the day it was ‘won’? That, ‘appearance of power’ of the vote, is what has held it in place for so long. ‘Democracy’ or a system of government by the whole population of all the eligible members of the state, through elected representatives who actually represent all the members, and not a select few, or those with material wealth, is what I mean by democracy. Whether that has ever been achieved, or even can be achieved, is purely an academic question, which depends on the concepts one is prepared to throw at it in any debate? At the present time our elected representatives, within our political system, do not represent all the members in it, and the politicians, the police, and the judiciary, show us, and are continuing to show us, clearly, that they are not representing all of the citizens, or even the majority of the members who elect them? Isn’t this one reason for the outcome of the brexit vote?

            I would agree with you that the system, in its present form, is nothing more than a charade, and desperately needs to be changed? I am not arguing here against an anarchist modus operandi, which may, or may not, be ‘better’ for those who would wish to adopt such a mode of existence, and there are examples of successful political organizations such as those of the Spanish in the last century to back up such claims? However, such a radical change in direction for the UK, at this juncture, is highly unlikely, to say the least, and because I see this, I would prefer to simply emphasize, and work towards, a more achievable, equitable, and just system, than the one presently in place. Your description of what our past and present would/could possibly be like is all very quaint, but all based on assumption and guesswork? If we are to acquiesce to your crystal ball gazing, whose to say that there would, or would not, be wars, for example, if we lived in an anarchic existence? Just because one state chooses anarchy does not mean that all states are required to adopt anarchy, and those states that did not, might wish the anarchist states to surrender their way of existence? Which, it self, might result in wars, pretty much making your predictions moot?

            I couldn’t agree more with what you said, and understand perfectly, about us being governed by the corporation[s] and that is why I said, ‘This travesty of justice, in the Assange case, simply underlines the total erosion of anything that could be called ‘democracy’ in the UK PLC?’ On the face of it, I believe we possibly have more in common than what you seem to suggest?

  • frankywiggles

    Sadly the good lady judge is emblematic of a justice system that jailed London teens for 5 years for stealing bottles of water but lets war criminals like Blair and Cameron bestride the world like colossi.

  • Velofello

    C’mon folks, you are just feeding Martinned. He/she is loving it,yum yum.

    And y’know, Assange isn’t dead, unlike the many killed by West interventions, and being killed as we read and write about Assange, in Yemen, Syria, and God knows wherever else we aren’t informed of. Remember the wee lad washed up on the beach due to the political sophistry of the UK and our great friend across the Atlantic? I have sympathy for Assange, and contempt for whoever tries to defend the Westminster elite and their practises.

  • Katherine Da Silva

    Well said! But, how does Julian Assange’s team come back and appeal… so he wins..?I noticed all the connections yesterday, but too now we have Gareth Pierce it might get better.. as she is use to the British system.. We need all the emails in my opinion..

1 2

Comments are closed.