Your Man in the Public Gallery – The Assange Hearing Day 3 295


In yesterday’s proceedings in court, the prosecution adopted arguments so stark and apparently unreasonable I have been fretting on how to write them up in a way that does not seem like caricature or unfair exaggeration on my part. What has been happening in this court has long moved beyond caricature. All I can do is give you my personal assurance that what I recount actually is what happened.

As usual, I shall deal with procedural matters and Julian’s treatment first, before getting in to a clear account of the legal arguments made.

Vanessa Baraitser is under a clear instruction to mimic concern by asking, near the end of every session just before we break anyway, if Julian is feeling well and whether he would like a break. She then routinely ignores his response. Yesterday he replied at some length he could not hear properly in his glass box and could not communicate with his lawyers (at some point yesterday they had started preventing him passing notes to his counsel, which I learn was the background to the aggressive prevention of his shaking Garzon’s hand goodbye).

Baraitser insisted he might only be heard through his counsel, which given he was prevented from instructing them was a bit rich. This being pointed out, we had a ten minute adjournment while Julian and his counsel were allowed to talk down in the cells – presumably where they could be more conveniently bugged yet again.

On return, Edward Fitzgerald made a formal application for Julian to be allowed to sit beside his lawyers in the court. Julian was “a gentle, intellectual man” and not a terrorist. Baraitser replied that releasing Assange from the dock into the body of the court would mean he was released from custody. To achieve that would require an application for bail.

Again, the prosecution counsel James Lewis intervened on the side of the defence to try to make Julian’s treatment less extreme. He was not, he suggested diffidently, quite sure that it was correct that it required bail for Julian to be in the body of the court, or that being in the body of the court accompanied by security officers meant that a prisoner was no longer in custody. Prisoners, even the most dangerous of terrorists, gave evidence from the witness box in the body of the court nest to the lawyers and magistrate. In the High Court prisoners frequently sat with their lawyers in extradition hearings, in extreme cases of violent criminals handcuffed to a security officer.

Baraitser replied that Assange might pose a danger to the public. It was a question of health and safety. How did Fitzgerald and Lewis think that she had the ability to carry out the necessary risk assessment? It would have to be up to Group 4 to decide if this was possible.

Yes, she really did say that. Group 4 would have to decide.

Baraitser started to throw out jargon like a Dalek when it spins out of control. “Risk assessment” and “health and safety” featured a lot. She started to resemble something worse than a Dalek, a particularly stupid local government officer of a very low grade. “No jurisdiction” – “Up to Group 4”. Recovering slightly, she stated firmly that delivery to custody can only mean delivery to the dock of the court, nowhere else in the room. If the defence wanted him in the courtroom where he could hear proceedings better, they could only apply for bail and his release from custody in general. She then peered at both barristers in the hope this would have sat them down, but both were still on their feet.

In his diffident manner (which I confess is growing on me) Lewis said “the prosecution is neutral on this request, of course but, err, I really don’t think that’s right”. He looked at her like a kindly uncle whose favourite niece has just started drinking tequila from the bottle at a family party.

Baraitser concluded the matter by stating that the Defence should submit written arguments by 10am tomorrow on this point, and she would then hold a separate hearing into the question of Julian’s position in the court.

The day had begun with a very angry Magistrate Baraitser addressing the public gallery. Yesterday, she said, a photo had been taken inside the courtroom. It was a criminal offence to take or attempt to take photographs inside the courtroom. Vanessa Baraitser looked at this point very keen to lock someone up. She also seemed in her anger to be making the unfounded assumption that whoever took the photo from the public gallery on Tuesday was still there on Wednesday; I suspect not. Being angry at the public at random must be very stressful for her. I suspect she shouts a lot on trains.

Ms Baraitser is not fond of photography – she appears to be the only public figure in Western Europe with no photo on the internet. Indeed the average proprietor of a rural car wash has left more evidence of their existence and life history on the internet than Vanessa Baraitser. Which is no crime on her part, but I suspect the expunging is not achieved without considerable effort. Somebody suggested to me she might be a hologram, but I think not. Holograms have more empathy.

I was amused by the criminal offence of attempting to take photos in the courtroom. How incompetent would you need to be to attempt to take a photo and fail to do so? And if no photo was taken, how do they prove you were attempting to take one, as opposed to texting your mum? I suppose “attempting to take a photo” is a crime that could catch somebody arriving with a large SLR, tripod and several mounted lighting boxes, but none of those appeared to have made it into the public gallery.

Baraitser did not state whether it was a criminal offence to publish a photograph taken in a courtroom (or indeed to attempt to publish a photograph taken in a courtroom). I suspect it is. Anyway Le Grand Soir has published a translation of my report yesterday, and there you can see a photo of Julian in his bulletproof glass anti-terrorist cage. Not, I hasten to add, taken by me.

We now come to the consideration of yesterday’s legal arguments on the extradition request itself. Fortunately, these are basically fairly simple to summarise, because although we had five hours of legal disquisition, it largely consisted of both sides competing in citing scores of “authorities”, e.g. dead judges, to endorse their point of view, and thus repeating the same points continually with little value from exegesis of the innumerable quotes.

As prefigured yesterday by magistrate Baraitser, the prosecution is arguing that Article 4.1 of the UK/US extradition treaty has no force in law.

The UK and US Governments say that the court enforces domestic law, not international law, and therefore the treaty has no standing. This argument has been made to the court in written form to which I do not have access. But from discussion in court it was plain that the prosecution argue that the Extradition Act of 2003, under which the court is operating, makes no exception for political offences. All previous Extradition Acts had excluded extradition for political offences, so it must be the intention of the sovereign parliament that political offenders can now be extradited.

Opening his argument, Edward Fitzgerald QC argued that the Extradition Act of 2003 alone is not enough to make an actual extradition. The extradition requires two things in place; the general Extradition Act and the Extradition Treaty with the country or countries concerned. “No Treaty, No Extradition” was an unbreakable rule. The Treaty was the very basis of the request. So to say that the extradition was not governed by the terms of the very treaty under which it was made, was to create a legal absurdity and thus an abuse of process. He cited examples of judgements made by the House of Lords and Privy Council where treaty rights were deemed enforceable despite the lack of incorporation into domestic legislation, particularly in order to stop people being extradited to potential execution from British colonies.

Fitzgerald pointed out that while the Extradition Act of 2003 did not contain a bar on extraditions for political offences, it did not state there could not be such a bar in extradition treaties. And the extradition treaty of 2007 was ratified after the 2003 extradition act.

At this stage Baraitser interrupted that it was plain the intention of parliament was that there could be extradition for political offences. Otherwise they would not have removed the bar in previous legislation. Fitzgerald declined to agree, saying the Act did not say extradition for political offences could not be banned by the treaty enabling extradition.

Fitzgerald then continued to say that international jurisprudence had accepted for a century or more that you did not extradite political offenders. No political extradition was in the European Convention on Extradition, the Model United Nations Extradition Treaty and the Interpol Convention on Extradition. It was in every single one of the United States’ extradition treaties with other countries, and had been for over a century, at the insistence of the United States. For both the UK and US Governments to say it did not apply was astonishing and would set a terrible precedent that would endanger dissidents and potential political prisoners from China, Russia and regimes all over the world who had escaped to third countries.

Fitzgerald stated that all major authorities agreed there were two types of political offence. The pure political offence and the relative political offence. A “pure” political offence was defined as treason, espionage or sedition. A “relative” political offence was an act which was normally criminal, like assault or vandalism, conducted with a political motive. Every one of the charges against Assange was a “pure” political offence. All but one were espionage charges, and the computer misuse charge had been compared by the prosecution to breach of the official secrets act to meet the dual criminality test. The overriding accusation that Assange was seeking to harm the political and military interests of the United States was in the very definition of a political offence in all the authorities.

In reply Lewis stated that a treaty could not be binding in English law unless specifically incorporated in English law by Parliament. This was a necessary democratic defence. Treaties were made by the executive which could not make law. This went to the sovereignty of Parliament. Lewis quoted many judgements stating that international treaties signed and ratified by the UK could not be enforced in British courts. “It may come as a surprise to other countries that their treaties with the British government can have no legal force” he joked.

Lewis said there was no abuse of process here and thus no rights were invoked under the European Convention. It was just the normal operation of the law that the treaty provision on no extradition for political offences had no legal standing.

Lewis said that the US government disputes that Assange’s offences are political. In the UK/Australia/US there was a different definition of political offence to the rest of the world. We viewed the “pure” political offences of treason, espionage and sedition as not political offences. Only “relative” political offences – ordinary crimes committed with a political motive – were viewed as political offences in our tradition. In this tradition, the definition of “political” was also limited to supporting a contending political party in a state. Lewis will continue with this argument tomorrow.

That concludes my account of proceedings. I have some important commentary to make on this and will try to do another posting later today. Now rushing to court.

With grateful thanks to those who donated or subscribed to make this reporting possible.

This article is entirely free to reproduce and publish, including in translation, and I very much hope people will do so actively. Truth shall set us free.

——————————————

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



 

Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]

Alternatively:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

295 thoughts on “Your Man in the Public Gallery – The Assange Hearing Day 3

1 2 3 4
    • Antonym

      No filming UK courts even outside as that might shed light to nature of the people presently protected by massive Arab oil money in Blighty, be they rapists, pilots or spies. Hush hush.
      You want Justice for British girls, Iraqi civilians or journalists? Show us your money!

  • nevermind

    Thanks for the hardship and psychological f…ery you expose yourself to in that kangaroo court every day. VB sounds like she is enjoying the use of this court to bully harrass and psychologically torture this honest and great man. Our best wishes to you, you are providing us with reality from this dance with wolfs, surrounded by stagnant MSM pond dwellers.
    Take care and keep warm.

  • Frank Hovis

    The harpie Baraitser comes across as a bit of a Poundshop Roland Freisler. Let’s not be downhearted though, there’s a long way to go yet. She is at the very bottom of her particular dungheap, Freisler was at the top of his.

  • Tom Welsh

    “Baraitser replied that Assange might pose a danger to the public”.

    Well, of course that makes sense. He might fly in with a helicopter and randomly spray innocent civilians with bullets.

    Oh wait… that was the soldiers whose crimes he is being charged with publicizing.

  • Tom Welsh

    “I was amused by the criminal offence of attempting to take photos in the courtroom. How incompetent would you need to be to attempt to take a photo and fail to do so?”

    Well, I suppose you might point your camera but be shot by some uniformed or ununiformed thug before you can press the button.

    Nothing would suprise us at this point. Frankly, I think even Kafka or Heller would be doubting his own sanity by now.

  • bob

    Assange is not being allowed to communicate with his defence team – despite ‘the best efforts’ of baraitser (what a c**t) – surely this is enough for them to call mistrial???

  • Tom Welsh

    “All previous Extradition Acts had excluded extradition for political offences, so it must be the intention of the sovereign parliament that political offenders can now be extradited”.

    Presumably the plan is to amend the law immediately Assange has been extradited, so that in future no one can be extradited for political reasons.

    Once those people learn a new mean, dishonest trick, they cannot wait to do it again.

  • Deb O'Nair

    It sounds like James Lewis QC is, perhaps, finding the conduct of Ms Baraitser somewhat…. um…. er…. un-fucking-believable? She’s making the Keystone Kops look professional and competent.

    • Northern

      Yeah there’s a strange irony to the reversal of roles between Lewis and Baraitser for sure. Though as Craig pointed out I’m fairly sure an establishment animal like Lewis’ only concern is to ensure she doesn’t lay it on too thick lest the defence start making noises about a mistrial.

      To see this whole facade collapse due to their own arrogance in judge selection would be delicious in the short term but ultimately even if they were to suddenly release Julian at the end of the day, the die has been cast now. Whilst it’s nice to have been proved correct from the beginning, like most people on this sight, I take no joy in being right about the nature of the establishment and democracy in this country.

      I don’t necessarily share other poster’s optimism that Julian will win an appeal. It’s not very far from Belmarsh to the nearest MOD airfield, he could be disappeared onto an unofficial flight within an hour of his extradition being approved – which both the UK and US have previous form for. Even if this wasn’t to happen, would it be that difficult for the authorities to ensure Julian sat before an unsympathetic judge in the court of appeal just as he has done here?

      • Rod

        Your last paragraph scares the Hell out of me for him, it has always been at the back of my mind that this Conservative government would do precisely what you’re suggesting might happen and let nobody think a Labour government would perform differently. Blair and Straw were participants in extraordinary rendition of a Libyan national and I see, today, that Sir Kier Starmer supports President Trump’s stance to have Mr Assange extradited by any means, legal or otherwise.

          • Rod

            Yes, happy to do this.

            It’s a site named ‘Counterfire’ – Headline is : Starmer sides with Trump against Assange : expect more of this if he’s leader. Dated February 20th, 2020.

            Hope it helps.

    • andrew wilson

      [ MOD: Caught in spam-filter ]

      She is not incompetent. She is doing a job. Following a brief.

      We may not like her job. The brief may be immoral, even evil, but she is competently carrying out her task.

      • Tom Welsh

        Nolnah’s Rozar: “Never attribute to incompetence that which can be adequately explained by malice”.

        Although that runs into Pig Hogger’s rebuttal: “Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice”.

  • Tom Welsh

    “For both the UK and US Governments to say it did not apply was astonishing and would set a terrible precedent that would endanger dissidents and potential political prisoners from China, Russia and regimes all over the world who had escaped to third countries”.

    As if China, Russia and other “regimes” were not intrinsically safer and more decent than the UK and the USA. (They are).

    • Tom Welsh

      Oh, and thanks for demonstrating your originality and independence of mind by repeating that tired old trope for the umpteen billionth time.

      • Martinned

        It’s as fair a response now as it was the first time it was made.

        (More generally, if you’re going to write something so massively divorced from reality, I’m either going to ignore it or write you a one-line response. There’s no point in giving it any more thought than that.)

        • Magic Robot

          Martinned.
          So rather than attempt to reform this regime, you would rather the critics of it impose self-exile upon themselves. Leave relatives, friends, their ‘roots’ behind?
          All the best would eventually leave, when things got bad enough if they had the means.
          That is what happened in the former East Germany.
          Then walls and watchtowers get built, to keep in the engineers, pilots, educators…etc that are deemed necessary, then people get killed.
          Of course here they can impose stricter ‘border controls’ if they have to.
          I cannot understand your peculiar outlook toward your fellow man.

  • Antiwar7

    Wouldn’t it be great if the soulless, evil toady they placed as the judge in this case were actually too stupid to carry it off correctly, and made the case appealable?

  • Gary

    What scares me is the lack of any attempt to make this look fair. People would be outraged if this was actually being reported. Were this overseas in an ‘enemy’ country and it was one of our citizens this would be reported in minutiae and there would be public protests.

    The ease with which our government can revert to oppressing political ideas is shocking, this should serve as a lesson to us all just how close we are to losing even the semblance of freedom…

    • Martinned

      Yes, I agree that it would be better if Craig would at least try to make his write-up look fair.

      • Northern

        Your usually a bit more sophisticated than that Martin – supervisor pilling the pressure on are they?

      • Tom Welsh

        As far as I can see – and apparently the great majority of commenters – Mr Murray has been scrupulously accurate and fair in spite of all the obstacles deliberately placed in his path.

        • Martinned

          I agree with Craig about what the outcome of this case should be. But that doesn’t mean his write-ups aren’t fantastically biased. That’s fair enough, I can read between the lines to infer what probably happened. His blog, his rules.

          • Bayard

            “But that doesn’t mean his write-ups aren’t fantastically biased.”

            Are you implying that they are factually inaccurate? If so, which are the inaccuracies?

        • Pb

          “as far as I can see”

          That’s the point, we can’t see (or hear) we have to take it on trust.

          Craig does not always get it right and he takes his preconceptions with him (we all do)

          What the vast majority will take away from the proceedings is what the MSM tells them.

          The vast majority do not care or they have bigger worries, so what if the OPCW lied to justify (retrospectively) the bombing of Syria by the UK, US and France?

          It really does not matter to the voters, that is why we have Boris and why it is quite possible that Julian is renditioned to the US before an appeal is heard.

          What will you do then? Tut?!

          • michael norton

            Most people have little time to consider things, no matter how important those things might be, their concern is earning a living and keeping a roof over their family.
            Some people, me for example, have too much time on our hands.
            It is what you do with your free time that counts.
            i do a lot of walking because I like walking but I also like thinking.
            It is very, very useful for us that Craig has time on his hands to do thinking.
            It is great that he is in court to give us his impression of how it is going.
            It is up to us, his readers to gently try and inform others.
            Perhaps we could write to our member of parliament.
            I’ve done that many, many times, almost always get a contrary response
            or they pass it on to a government minister, those responses are always downright ignorant.
            At that point you drop it
            as you realise you will get nowhere.

            However if thousands of people write to their M.P. or a member of the government, at some point, somebody in authority must have a moment of doubt?

      • Magic Robot

        As you point out earlier:
        “Feel free to move there…”
        I add – to whichever blogger’s witness report to the proceeding look more ‘fair’ to you.
        Not much point your staying to read this one, seeing as you’re clearly discomfited by it.

    • Mr Obvious

      It’s as if specific US oligarch has a personal vendetta against Assange and they’re handling it themselves but they’re a bit braindead. My guess would Larry Summers, former treasury security. I think he was behind the dating website scam that targeting Assange a while back.

  • Kaiama

    That we have to rely on an ex ambassador for an accurate report is a vindication for those of us who distrust the mainstream media. Before the internet, none of this would have seen the light of day. Based on the reporting, I suspect he will lose round 1 but may well win rounds 2 or round 3. The judge is junior enough to have carrots dangled in front of her to ensure her co-operation. People at the very top are much more difficult to manipulate.

    • Merkin Scot

      I think she will find in favour of the extradition and Assange will be in the US, pending appeal, before you can say ‘fait accompli’.
      Appeals will then be irrelevant.

      • Kaiama

        Provided an appeal is lodged within time, the UK government would be extremely foolish to extradite Assange before the appeal is heard.

        • Purple Library Guy

          Foolish? What, because they’d face international condemnation? As if. Some UN officials might make a few inconvenient statements. The non-aligned movement, and Russia and China, might say a few things, but nobody will listen. The EU, individually and collectively, will shut up because the Americans will tell them to. The media will brand anyone who complains a Putin-lover. And any malcontents upset about it in Britain itself will of course be antisemites–there is after all a well-known correlation between respect for human rights and the truth, and antisemitism, since believing in human rights for, and telling the truth about, Palestinians is of course antisemitic.
          There are no steps too far, any more. I used to think having cops drag someone out of an embassy would still be a taboo whose violation would surely have some kind of consequences. Yeah, not so much it turns out.

  • SeanW

    So I thought I’d ask G4S on twitter whether they had any objection to Assange sitting with his lawyers and someone told me they no longer handle court custordy services in the UK. So who is it? Serco?

    A minor point, in this horrorshow, but I suppose this reflects even more poorly on Baraitser that she refers to ‘Group 4’ (not even in existence any more, should be ‘G4S’) rather than the actual company responsbile for security in her court.

  • michael norton

    A man accused of murdering journalist Lyra McKee has been granted bail at Londonderry Magistrates’ Court.
    Paul McIntyre, 52, from Kinnego Park in Derry, appeared via video link from Maghaberry Prison.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51657494
    yet Julian Assange is only guilty of exposing the truth.

    • Deb O'Nair

      When it comes to NI you can not believe a word the BBC says. It appears that there is very little evidence against this man and it’s likely just an opportunity to wave the IRA terrorist bogeyman at consumers of BBC output.The IRA are adhering to the GFA and the ceasefire. Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Irish Republican movement, have categorically and repeatedly stated that there will be no return to political violence, especially as they are in the political ascendancy in Ireland. The only people who will benefit from political violence in NI is the UK government.

  • Cascadian

    Just a question – given the seeming absence of any information regarding Vanessa Barraitser (e.g. photos, history, cases judged other than associated with Assange, etc.) is there really any evidence that she really is qualified to be a judge?

      • Cascadian

        And your point, Martinned?

        Given that we seem to have sleep walked into a police state, the being appointed as a judge is no big issue for those who hold the reigns of power in the UK.

        As Deb O’Nair alludes below – she may indeed by a convenient plant who will disappear when Julian has been shipped off the the land of the free.

        Given the way that narratives are created and maintained, the creation of an entirely false identity should not be wondered at but instead raged at.

        But I don’t suppose that bothers you. I does me.

      • Deb O'Nair

        She’s probably just a creation of the security services. It’s suspicious that someone presiding over a high profile case has no profile (except in the MI compromised Guardian). After the case she can go back to her real identity and no one will be any the wiser. This may explain her outburst at the prospect of being photographed.

  • James Cook

    Excellent! Your observation, hearing and insightful wisdom have combined to make this your best report to date!

    Excellent!; “He looked at her like a kindly uncle whose favourite niece has just started drinking tequila from the bottle at a family party.”

    Excellent!; “Yes, she really did say that. Group 4 would have to decide. Baraitser started to throw out jargon like a Dalek when it spins out of control.”

    Even without said, attempted photos, I was there next to you in my minds-eye! Excellent.

    Very skillfully done, Sir!

    Thank You!

  • Simon Hewitt

    Craig’s superbly detailed reports will one day be viewed as an invaluable historical source. But they are a mighty long chew. Producing condensed, press-release-length versions might do more to advance this cause.

  • Rosemary MacKenzie

    Thanks for your interesting coverage of this “trial?* Craig. It does sound like a total stitch-up.

    Lots of comments about Baraitser. Could this be a alias/psuedo-name? Nobody can verify her credentials under Baraitser. As a judge, she doesn’t seem to exist.

  • Maria Carolina Varela

    Julian Assange is already one of the biggest names in the History of Mankind to the great pain of those who seek to condemn him. Total freedom, total compensation.

  • Purple Library Guy

    So wait a minute . . . the Extradition Act says nothing about the United States specifically, right? And it doesn’t allow extradition to just anywhere, only to places you have a treaty with, right? So if the prosecution is saying the specific extradition treaty with the US (and presumably everyone else) has no force in British law, then that would mean that for British law it is as if the specific extradition treaties don’t exist (unless they have specific enabling legislation passed by parliament, one law per treaty or something, which they don’t have). But if they don’t exist, that means nobody can be extradited, specifically in this case to the United States, and more generally it means the United Kingdom can’t extradite anyone, ever, to anywhere, until they adopt a practice of passing laws echoing the sense of the extradition treaties they’ve signed.
    Presumably that’s not how parliament was intending the Extradition Act to work. But if they want it to work, like at all, in such a fashion that people can be extradited to for instance the United States, then it has to work according to the extradition treaty with the United States.
    I’m not happy with people who lie for power. But I’m just boggled by people who have the gall and disrespect for reason to try to pass off a logical contradiction–something that not only isn’t true, but can’t possibly be true, so that you can just look at what they’ve said and conclude that it has no ability to be true. And be self-righteous about it, yet. Contemptible.

    • Bailed

      The IQ of many lay magistrates is not very high. That is my observation as a court reporter for many years and the step-son of a court clerk who used to tell stories about finding lost magistrates wandering around the courthouse when he came to lock up.

  • Republicofscotland

    Assange can’t even hear what’s going on, and he can’t sit next to his lawyer, he’s being tried for extradition in a terrorist court in this kangaroo show trial. The outside world must be reading your fine report Craig and thinking is Assange being tried in a Chinese show trial instead of a English court room, not only that American suited advisors are shadowing the prosecution, in a English court, steering events on behalf of the USA.

    The fiasco leading up to an including this charade posing as a legitimate court case, is surreal. I can’t believe the British government are going to these extremes to show that democracy and justice for some doesnt apply.

    If Assange an innocent publisher whose served his time for jumping bail, most bail jumper get a fine, another injustice I might add, is extradited to the USA to be tortured, (even killed) and locked up for life, the British government and the disgraceful English judiciary will have lost all credibility in my opinion.

    Do the people of England where this travesty is unfolding, not realise that if they can this to Assange they can do it to anyone?

    • michael norton

      I wonder if it would be different, say in Scotland?

      There does seem to be unfolding a ghastly view of British justice.
      Remember in wartime, we still had hanging, with very little recourse to justice.
      We do, though, seem to be sleep walking in to a police state.
      This is not right.
      I am very unlikely to be bullied or harassed by the courts but this really bothers me, I do not like it, one bit.

  • writeon

    In today’s Guardian online someone called Fraces Perraudin ‘covers’ the Assange hearing. At the end he/she mentions that Assange saught refuge in Ecaudor’s London embassy.

    “He did so to avoid extradition to Sweden over sexual assault allegations.”

    Now, this isn’t true. It’s fake news in my opinion. A lie. But I suppose if the Guardian repeats it over and over again it slowly becomes the ‘truth’ in their eyes. Still, it’s a disgrace. It’s actually the opposite of reality. Assange didn’t care about being extradited to Sweden to ‘face the music’ and an eventual trial, which arguably would never have happened because the allegations were so absurd that the Swedes couldn’t even manage to charge him after years and years of ‘investigations’; so, really the chances of him being charged, let alone convicted, were close to zero. What Assange was afraid of, and rightly so, was that once he was out of the UK, and ‘friendless’ in Sweden he’d be shipped off pretty quickly to the United States and the Swedes wouldn’t give him assurances that they would bow to US demands.

    Why can’t the Guardian publish the truth for a change? Why do they have to lie so much for so long? Is it merely fucking incredible ignorance, or are they really the stupid fuckers they seem to be?

    Years ago I explained in minute detail to them what exactly was going on in Sweden, as I, like Nils Melzer can read and speak Swedish, which means I could read the leaked police reports and the witness reports. Like Melzer, I was stunned by how different the facts were compared to what the Guardian published. Was the Guardian interested in the truth about events in Sweden? Not a bit of it. They preferred the lies because they too were out to ‘get’ Assange come what may. Today, nothing much has changed.

    What sort of surprises me is that there are no people of honour, integrity or courage working at the Guardian anymore. No whistleblowerrs or principled dissenters who still value the truth rather than propaganda.

    • Robyn

      There’s one way to stop the Guardian – don’t go there. We all know now that they are nothing but the publicity arm of the Deep State. No clicks, no sales, soon enough no Guardian.

  • Linda Roulston

    It’s actually a criminal offence to take a photo within the precincts of the court, not just in the court itself.

  • remember kronstadt

    and the USA thinks it a plaintiff? quick someone arrest it…

    International Criminal Court
    Article 6 defines the crime of genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.[73] There are five such acts which constitute crimes of genocide under article 6:[74]

    • Killing members of a group
    • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
    • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction
    • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
    • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

    The definition of these crimes is identical to those contained within the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948.

  • Ort

    First of all, thanks again to Craig for continuing to provide informative and thoughtful dispatches, grim as much of the contents are.

    In all of the comments I’ve read about Julian being sadistically penned inside that glass box, I have yet to see an obvious “callback”: consciously or not, the physical setup is reminiscent of the trial of the original “man in the glass booth”, Adolf Eichmann. It is obvious that the authorities responsible for staging the proceedings wish to create the general impression that Assange is so personally menacing and loathsome, i.e. monstrous, that he must be prevented from even sharing air with innocent bystanders.

    There is much commentary here regarding the elusive and evanescent hanging judge, Vanessa Baraitser– specifically, the curious absence of a photograph and commonplace Internet references.

    Consider that in our old world, “Justice” was typically symbolized by a “goddess” figure of a blindfolded woman in ceremonial garb and various accoutrements. The blindfold represents impartiality, the ideal that achieving justice requires that triers of fact resolutely rule without fear of, or favor towards, wealth, power, or other status.

    But nowadays, we are no longer in that old world. We are through the Looking-Glass, and here justice is the Red Queen’s province. Thus, it is the people who must be blindfolded, the better to submissively and uncritically accept the dictates of the Red Queen’s ministers.

  • Brianfujisan

    Northern @ February 27, 2020 at 15:29

    informs us –

    ” It’s not very far from Belmarsh to the nearest MOD airfield, he could be disappeared onto an unofficial flight within an hour of his extradition being approved ”

    That the vile Baraitser feels so bold as to make things up Re Julian’s Cage.. The treaty.. that even the Prosecution has to Correct her, And that Arbuthnot is overseeing her..it all paints of a despicable pre- planned outcome. all to cover up, and protect the real evil criminals.

    Craig thank you for your determined reporting of these court goings on. your words draw us right in to that room.. Rest up when you get some time

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.