Julian Assange Hearing – Your Help Wanted 69


Here is a list of things you can do to help. Everyone can do at least one of these.

1) Put 18 May firmly in your diary. The hearing stands adjourned until 18 May. Turn up on 18 May and join the protests there all day – show the world this is a political trial, and we know it. Woolwich Crown Court is walking distance from Plumstead Railway Station in South East London. If you feel able to do so, bring your tent and join the Free Assange Village that sets up on the grass banks around the court – there is loads of available space. But if you can just turn up for the day, that is just as valuable. Protests will roll on every day throughout the hearing which will continue for a minimum of three weeks.

Make all the noise you can at the protests. The prosecution is anxious to portray this as an “ordinary criminal case”. Make sure the world, and the judge, know it is not. There was an attempt by the judge to deflect the communication problems caused by Julian being locked inside a bulletproof glass cage, and blame the distant noise of protestors for that instead. Do not be deflected by this arrant nonsense. Make all the noise you can.

2) Write to your elected representatives. This really does have an impact if done en masse. You can do this whichever country you are in. The key points are these:

– Publishing the truth should not be a crime. Wikileaks exposed war crimes and worldwide corruption by governments.
– The prosecution case rests entirely on the argument that the UK/US Extradition Treaty of 2007 is legally enforceable, but that specifically Clause 4.i of the Treaty forbidding extradition for political offences has no standing in law. This is an absurd argument.
– Ask specifically your elected representative whether they personally believe political offences should be extraditable, and what they believe the impact might be worldwide on political dissidents in exile
– Demand they act on the disgraceful conditions in which Julian is held, including entirely unnecessary strip searches and manacling, lack of access to his legal papers and lack of access to his lawyers. Point out he has not been convicted and that these are incompatible with his status as an innocent remand prisoner. Point out he is being treated as the most violent convicted terrorists are treated, but he is unconvicted and accused of a peaceful political offence.

3) Put in a freedom of information request. I explained at great length why it is impossible that the UK could have ratified the US/UK Extradition Treaty in 2007 if it is indeed, as the prosecution claim, incompatible with the UK Extradition Act of 2003. Please read that again.

If you are in the UK
There must be documentary evidence of all the clearance work around Whitehall that was done to ensure the 2007 Treaty is fully compatible with UK law. I therefore need people to submit Freedom of Information Requests to:
a)Foreign & Commonwealth Office (Specifying Consular Dept, Legal Advisers, North American Dept, Nationality & Treaty Dept, Counter Terrorism Dept or their successors if renamed and any other relevant departments)
b)Home Office
c)Treasury Solicitors
d)Cabinet Office
e)UK Parliament

Requesting “All materials relating to the ratification and entry into force of the UK/US Extradition Treaty (signed 2003 ratified 2007), and particularly all discussion of the ability of the 2003 Extradition Act to apply all of its provisions, of the need or lack of need for any further statutory provision to incorporate it into English law, including but not exclusively any reference to extradition for political offences or to clause 4 of the UK US Extradition Treaty.” Materials should be requested from 2002 to 2007.

If you are in the USA, please similarly put in a FOIA request to the Department of Justice and State Department for all material relating to the implementation of the UK/US Extradition Treaty (signed 2003, ratified 2007), and particularly any discussion of the political offences exclusion at Clause 4, in particular but not exclusively with relation to the desirability of the UK implementing that clause and/or the UK’s ability to do so.

I realise I am asking for a bit of work here from you to work out how to do and phrase this. I have never been let down when drawing on the tenacity and perspicacity of our readers before!

4) Research the passing of the 2003 Extradition Act.

In Court the prosecution argued that the 2003 Extradition Act was the first such UK Act not to include an exclusion for political offences. Parliament must therefore deliberately have removed the political offences exclusion and the 2007 Treaty could not put it back in. The defence argued to the contrary that the 2003 Extradition Act is an Enabling Act on which extradition treaties depend. Both the Act and the Treaty are required for extradition, and the Act did nothing to limit Treaties from including a ban on extradition for political offences.

As always, Judge Baraitser ignored the defence argument. She three times asserted as a simple matter of fact that Parliament had intended to allow extradition for political offences when passing the 2003 Extradition Act. Twice she did this in interruption of the defence argument to the contrary.

Normally neither arguments about the intention of parliament, nor quotes from Hansard debates, are taken into consideration by English courts. With few exceptions, rulings have been that the legislation must be read on its face. But here, Baraitser has herself quoted the intention of parliament – using that very word – to justify dismissing the defence argument. It must therefore be legitimate to introduce evidence on the intention of parliament, if the judge is going to rely on the concept.

I therefore need people to read through all the Hansards of debates on the 2003 Extradition Act, both in the Commons and the Lords, to see what was said about extradition for political offences, and particular if any distinction was made between terrorists and peaceful political offenders, and whether ministers gave any reassurances. Apart from the debates, there may be parliamentary questions in Hansard on the same topic.

It is of course true that the 2003 Extradition Act was a product of the so-called “War on Terror” and the Iraq and Afghan invasions, passed by Blair, Straw and Blunkett, undoubtedly the most hostile to civil liberty, authoritarian government in modern British history. But even so, I feel fairly confident that to get the Act through the Commons and especially the Lords, ministers will have been obliged to give some reassurance it was not intended to use it against peaceful political dissidents.

I have received quite a clamour from people wanting to know how they can help. Off you go!

This blog will resume its daily coverage of the hearings when proceedings restart on 18 May. On a personal note, my sincere thanks to all those who supported financially. I am happy to report that from the afternoon of Day 3, an accommodation was made by the Court whereby Julian was given six seats in the public gallery for family and close friends, and he kindly listed me for one of those, so I no longer had to queue at 6am, and I hope that will continue.

Finally may I say that I am always delighted when readers, and subscribers, introduce themselves personally. I find it really heartwarming and it certainly helped keep my morale up at a very tiring and emotionally draining time. So please do not feel in the least reticent to say hello if you come along from 18 May.

There was a tremendous camaraderie at the hearing among Julian’s supporters, and I believe I met people from well nigh every country in Europe and the Americas. We kept each other going, and Julian lit up every time he saw friendly faces. It was a very intense week, and even with a wonderful and loving family to go home to, I felt a bit down after we all split up, and everyone who has been back in contact since has said the same thing. I am haunted by the thought of how much more dreadful Julian must feel, back into the bowels of that high tech dungeon and virtual solitary confinement, with very little contact with his legal team or his papers and months to go before anything else happens. Do think of him and pray for him if you have a faith.

——————————————

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.


69 thoughts on “Julian Assange Hearing – Your Help Wanted

1 2
  • MrK

    Craig Murray: “It is of course true that the 2003 Extradition Act was a product of the so-called “War on Terror” and the Iraq and Afghan invasions, passed by Blair, Straw and Blunkett, undoubtedly the most hostile to civil liberty, authoritarian government in modern British history. But even so, I feel fairly confident that to get the Act through the Commons and especially the Lords, ministers will have been obliged to give some reassurance it was not intended to use it against peaceful political dissidents.”

    The dicussion in the House of Lords came down to the assurance that the government would introduce amendmends to the bill that would protect against extradition for dual criminality, publication, etc.

    Lord Scott of Foscote: “Currently, the Bill’s provisions do not cater satisfactorily for cases in which the conduct crosses borders in the way I have described. Let us suppose a case involving publication on the Internet by which there was publication in this country but downloading in another member state. We might consider the case of newspaper articles: an article may be written and published in this country but distributed in another member state. Let us suppose that the content of the article on the Internet would be regarded as criminal in the other member state because it contains, for example, holocaust denial. Is that a case in which we should have to extradite without the requirement of dual criminality to the foreign country in question, notwithstanding the fact that a substantial part of the conduct had taken place in this country?

    Lord Filkin: “My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, for giving way. I answered those important questions in the European Union Committee last week and did so a second time in the Second Reading debate. On the specific examples that he gave—they relate to the nature of the Bill rather than our current debate—I have already answered the point and put beyond doubt the fact that the concerns that he is raising will not be issues because we will move amendments to that effect.”

    Lord Scott of Foscote: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was trying to set the background ​ before coming to the very careful and clear evidence that he gave only last Wednesday to the subcommittee of the European Union Committee of which I have the honour to be the current chairman. He made the position clear and gave assurances—no one doubts those assurances—that the Government will introduce amendments so that there will not be extradition where a substantial part of the conduct, albeit not all of it, took place in this country. However, that is the vice, as I understand the procedure, of sittings in Grand Committee. We have not yet seen this highly important amendment, but it must be considered by Members of this House. It may be necessary to suggest alternative wording to that important amendment; it may be thought that one could more satisfactorily achieve the aim the common aim of all—in that way rather than with the wording the Minister proposes.”

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2003-05-06/debates/2d6afd26-6250-4334-a1a3-8f05258317c5/ExtraditionBill?highlight=extradition%20publication#contribution-3604a352-bb33-4642-8c47-65ba961f51c2

    • MrK

      It seems clear that there was great concern about the lack of protections specifically stated in the bill, however the bill was moved through after assurances of amendments to protect human and other legal rights.

      However… the bill itself refers concerns about human rights to the Human Rigths Act of 1998, which does specifically mention protection for publication and publishing materials in the public interest – which the Collateral Murder video most definitely was.

      1. EXTRADITION ACT OF 2003

      – Comment – this Act specifically defers protections of human rights to the Human Rights Act of 1998.

      Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/contents

      21A Person not convicted: human rights and proportionality

      (1)If the judge is required to proceed under this section (by virtue of section 11), the judge must decide both of the following questions in respect of the extradition of the person (“D”)—

      (a) whether the extradition would be compatible with the Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998;
      (b) whether the extradition would be disproportionate.

      2. HUMAN RIGHTS ACT OF 1998

      – Comment – this Act mentions Freedom Of Expression and especially draws attention to Freedom Of Expression, including “journalistic, literary or artistic material”. Also, the 1998 Human Rights Act specifically allows for a Public Interest defense (unlike the Court in Virginia), when “it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published;” (12 (4) a ii)

      http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

      12 Freedom of expression.

      (4)The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—

      (a)the extent to which—

      (i)the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or
      (ii)it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published;

      (b)any relevant privacy code.

      Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/12

  • lysias

    George Galloway said on his radio show last Sunday that he had been assured by Blunkett that his misgivings against the extradition treaty were answered by the section of the treaty prohibiting extradition for political offenses.

    By the way, legislative intent is often used by U.S. courts to interpret the meaning of legislation. Another example of American influence on Baraitser’s reasoning?

    • Tom Welsh

      Oh good. Mr Galloway has Mr Blunkett’s “assurance”.

      “With a politician’s promise and £2.50, you can buy a cup of coffee”.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    Might do Number 1. It would be a good test of our tent, and we haven’t met Craig Murray and Clark yet, though have threatened to on numerous occasions over the last 10 years (including Norwich).

    Can’t stay long though, we are camping at a festival a few days later.

    How far is it from where I can park my car, to where we can camp? Whilst we have been camping, via buses and trains, that was quite a long time ago, when we had less gear.

    I assume smoking is banned, but is alcohol and music allowed?

    I don’t need a foghorn. I can still shout very loud.

    cu soon

    Tony

  • Tom

    I submitted an FOI to the FCO at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ukus_extradition_treaty but others may wish to copy the same request to Home Office, Treasury Solicitors, Cabinet Office, UK Parliament.

    Just a reminder you can reach your UK MP at https://www.writetothem.com

    My unimaginative letter:

    Dear MP

    Please help Julian Assange

    – Publishing the truth should not be a crime. Wikileaks exposed war crimes and worldwide corruption by governments. – The prosecution case rests entirely on the argument that the UK/US Extradition Treaty of 2007 is legally enforceable, but that specifically Clause 4.i of the Treaty forbidding extradition for political offences has no standing in law. This is an absurd argument.

    Do you personally believe political offences should be extraditable, and what they believe the impact might be worldwide on political dissidents in exile

    Please act on the disgraceful conditions in which Julian is held, including entirely unnecessary strip searches and manacling, lack of access to his legal papers and lack of access to his lawyers. He has not been convicted and that these are incompatible with his status as an innocent remand prisoner. He is being treated as the most violent convicted terrorists are treated, but he remains unconvicted and accused of a peaceful political offence.

  • Monster

    I’m digging up Baraitser’s background. Most of the family members live around SE London and Kent. Pater Michael Baraitser, a former antiques dealer from Cape Town, has two very talented daughters, Paula and Lisa who occupy high academic positions at Birkbeck and Kings. Another daughter and the mother are both Israeli activists, operating on the arts side. Before the family joined the economic migration from SA they lived in the expensive suburb of Pinetree, Cape Town where grand old man Abraham was a senior figure in the Jewish community. SA security service records (from BOSS) reveal them to be onside with the white apartheid government. In total the family has considerable wealth in this country (anecdotal from a former neighbour). I sent a note to all four inns of court to determine if she had any connections there. Magistrates do not normaly arrive through those channels, but someone may have come across her (laughable) decisions.

    • Jen

      Baraitser was appointed by Chief Magistrate for the Westminster circuit (Lady Emma Arbuthnot) to preside over Assange’s extradition hearing when the latter had to step down over, erm, numerous conflicts of interests. Arbuthnot may not have recused herself completely and may still be instructing Baraitser. Arbuthnot would surely know something of Baraitser’s character and ability as a District Judge – why and how else would she have appointed her?

  • Brian Nevols

    https://www.channel4.com/4viewers/contact-us
    Firstly, thank you very much for keeping us informed about this travesty of justice. The details of how he is being treated are are shocking but why am I not surprised.
    I used to think the people at Chan 4 news were reasonably evenhanded in their reporting but over the last couple of years I’m afraid their bias has become as bad as the once excellent BBC. I no longer watch the BBC news in any form and now after the Chan 4 non reporting of the Assange farce I doubt very much whether I’ll be watching them either. I have sent a message of complaint to the a/m site but I am not really expecting any worthwhile reply.

  • Andrea

    Amazing work. My hat goes off to you Craig.
    I will keep writing to the politians
    And fingers crossed BV for Julian.
    Kindest regards
    Andrea

  • Eoin

    In the UK, this is a suggested template for making FOI requests by email [someone might post the email accounts for FOI requests for the bodies suggested by Craig]:

    Subject: Freedom of Information Act 2000

    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I wish to make a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

    My details
    Name: Joe Bloggs, 1 Acme Avenue, Acme Town, Acmeshire, AC1 2ME Email: [email protected]

    Information sought:
    (1) Records created between 1 Jan 2002 and 31 December 2007, relating to the ratification and entry into force of the UK/US Extradition Treaty (signed 2003 ratified 2007), and particularly all discussion of the ability of the 2003 Extradition Act to apply all of its provisions, of the need or lack of need for any further statutory provision to incorporate it into English law, including but not exclusively any reference to extradition for political offences or to clause 4 of the UK US Extradition Treaty.

    Format in which information is sought
    By email, either directly in the body of the email or as an attachment in any standard format eg xls,xlsx,doc, docx, pdf, rtf, txt

    Any other information
    N/a

    With many thanks for your time,
    Yours sincerely
    Joe Bloggs

  • Dungroanin

    In that case I’m definitely going!

    Don’t change your mind though, I wouldn’t want to have to cancel at the last minute.

  • Rod

    Mr Murray, I am in the process of crafting a letter to each of the three candidates of the Labour Party leadership contest in an attempt to draw them out and have them explain their individual stances relating to the recent extradition hearing. I am particularly concerned that Sir Kier Starmer, the apparent leading contender, is on record as being of the same mind as President Trump and would see Mr Assange placed into US government jurisdiction (see interview with ‘Counterfire’ dated February 25th, 2020). Sir Kier is under the impression that British courts are not corrupt and I want to impress upon him your observations in court and how the magistrate, Ms Baraitser, conducted herself during those proceedings. I’ve no doubt each of the candidates will want to further their own ambitions and it will be like nailing smoke to the wall to get any tangible response. It seems it’s the best I can do at my age and I hope it helps.

    • Carol

      Extradition hearings proceed because the UK is just as hostile to Assange as the US. Last weekend, journalists Matt Kennard and Mark Curtis revealed that Sajid Javid, who as Conservative government home secretary approved the US extradition request, attended six annual meetings of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which has close ties to the US intelligence community. He spoke at one event alongside then- National Review editor Jonah Goldberg, who asked in a column published on the AEI website, “Why wasn’t Assange garrotted in his hotel room years ago?” Neo-con ideologue Bill Kristol, who also spoke, wrote a column asking, “Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?”

      At last week’s extradition hearing, Assange’s legal team explained that they would be presenting evidence from an unnamed whistle-blower detailing conversations between UC Global and the CIA “about whether there should be more extreme measures contemplated, such as kidnapping or poisoning Julian Assange in the embassy.” These discussions included suggesting that the embassy door could be left open to make a kidnapping look like it could have been “an accident.”

      The UK authorities have ignored this mountain of evidence of threats to Assange’s life because the possibility of a death penalty automatically bars extradition. They know that the promise extended to Ecuador is worthless. If Assange is extradited, he faces either a life sentence or execution. Preventing this demands the mass mobilisation of the working class in Assange’s defence.

      No justice can be expected at the hands of the corrupt British courts. During the four days of proceedings last week, Assange was forced to sit in a bulletproof glass box, without access to his lawyers to properly frame his defence and under constant surveillance by prison officers, and also no doubt by CIA spies in the courtroom. He was handcuffed, strip-searched and heavily medicated—all with the approval of presiding magistrate Vanessa Baraitser. She ruled that Assange must remain in a dock encased in reinforced glass when the extradition hearing resumes in May.

      • Tom Welsh

        ‘…Jonah Goldberg, who asked in a column published on the AEI website, “Why wasn’t Assange garrotted in his hotel room years ago?” Neo-con ideologue Bill Kristol, who also spoke, wrote a column asking, “Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?”’

        Well, it couldn’t be any clearer that the US establishment doesn’t give a rat’s ass for law, morality or custom. All they believe in is lying and – should that fail – murder.

        How long will it be, do you think, before those who sow the wind reap the whirlwind? Maybe one day Goldberg and Kristol will be garrotted in their hotel rooms.

        Which would be a crying shame.

        • Magic Robot

          Paraphrasing from memory:
          “They would find much in common to talk about, sitting at a table with gangsters from the backstreets of Chicago.”
          Alfred Noyes, ‘The Edge of the Abyss.’ Pub. 1942.

      • Tom Welsh

        Legally, I wonder what happens if Assange is extradited and then executed? That would mean that the UK “justice system” has made a mistake, which is inconceivable.

        In an SF story, that is where the whole works would self-destruct.

        But seriously. If someone is extradited because there is no chance that they will be killed… and then they are killed… who will be jailed or executed in retribution?

        Or will they all just say, aw what a pity – my bad?

        • Michael duncan

          Tom

          actually a phrase that fits well with the question at the end of your post is from the old TV series’Dad’s Army’

          it goes. -‘Oh dear, how sad……Never mind!’

          Plus Ca Change!
          am quite new to Just bought a Craig Murray’s work but just bought a book of his.
          Michael

          • Iain Stewart

            No, according to latest research it was Windsor Davies who said that in the other excruciating mirthfest “It aint half hot, Mum”. Stupid boy 🙂

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Tom Welsh March 6, 2020 at 21:24
          The same thing that happened with Iraq; well over a million dead, country destroyed, Bliar raking in the £millions. Gee, mistakes happen.

  • Carol

    REVEALED: Chief magistrate in Assange case received financial benefits from secretive partner organisations of UK Foreign Office
    By Matt Kennard and Mark Curtis• 21 February 2020
    https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-02-21-revealed-chief-magistrate-in-assange-case-received-financial-benefits-from-secretive-partner-organisations-of-uk-foreign-office/

    The son of Julian Assange’s judge is linked to an anti-data leak company created by the UK intelligence establishment
    By Matt Kennard and Mark Curtis• 15 November 2019
    https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2019-11-15-conflicts-of-interest-judge-in-julian-assange-case-fails-to-declare-sons-links-to-uk-and-us-intelligence/

  • mark golding

    Make all the noise you can… Time to bring forth a deep-rooted emotion by reawakening our memories of the sorrow, the sadness, and the shame that was the Iraq war of 2003. I believe most have the hope; care deeply about the civilian massacres that took place during this illegal war that originated from a blatant lie. The emotions of two million British people were ignored, defied, rejected and even ridiculed before that Iraq holocaust.

    It is those emotions, that passion, that anger and that love for peace which survives, persists and endures 17 years on.

    Deliver that fervor for Julian who exposed the heinous barbarity of those war-mongers; deliver en-masse and demand closure, appeal for and expect atonement.

  • Adrian Evitts

    “Normally neither arguments about the intention of parliament, nor quotes from Hansard debates, are taken into consideration by English courts.”

    In Pepper v Hart (1992), the House of Lords established the principle that when primary legislation is ambiguous then, in certain circumstances, the court may refer to statements made in the House of Commons or House of Lords in an attempt to interpret the meaning of the legislation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_(Inspector_of_Taxes)_v_Hart

    I really hope that Assange, by some miracle, avoids extradition to the United States.

  • Republic of Wales

    I have said it before and I will say it again, publish a PO Box address and I will send you a cheque for a substantial amount, the methods you offer do not appeal.

  • Fleur

    Questions for Craig:
    – Do UK FOIAs have to be done by UK citizens?
    – Are the results in digital or paper form?
    Ta

  • Sari Gehle

    Thank you Craig from here in Australia where Julian is from. The most heartbreaking thing is the almost complete lack of support from Julians own government and the apathy of many Australians.

  • linda mccorrison

    Craig, have you thought to ask a sympathetic MP to ask the Commons library to check hansard or to simply ask the questions you pose.

  • MrsS

    ‘Although Part 1 of the 2003 Act does not contain an express political offence
    exception, section 13 is wide enough to permit a consideration of the political motivation of
    the offence to be taken into account in determining whether the requested person’s position
    may be prejudiced for any of the stated reasons. The test is satisfied if the requested person
    shows “a reasonable chance,” “substantial grounds for thinking” or “a serious possibility of
    prejudice”: Fernandez v. Government of Singapore [1971] 1 WLR 987. The courts in
    England, Wales and Northern Ireland have also developed an abuse of process jurisdiction.
    This jurisdiction operates in any case where a prosecutor is manipulating or using the
    procedures of the court in order to oppress or unfairly prejudice a defendant: R (Bermingham)
    and others v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2007] QB 727; R (Government of the
    United States of America v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court [2007] 1 WLR 1157; Re
    Campbell’s Applicant [2009] NIQB 82. ‘

    From page 377 notes

    Section 13 States

    13Extraneous considerations
    A person’s extradition to a category 1 territory is barred by reason of extraneous considerations if (and only if) it appears that—
    (a)the Part 1 warrant issued in respect of him (though purporting to be issued on account of the extradition offence) is in fact issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions, or
    (b)if extradited he might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/13

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117673/extradition-review.pdf

  • MrsS

    Extradition Act 2003 _ Section 81

    81 Extraneous considerations
    A person’s extradition to a category 2 territory is barred by reason of extraneous considerations if (and only if) it appears that—
    (a)the request for his extradition (though purporting to be made on account of the extradition offence) is in fact made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions, or
    (b)if extradited he might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions.

  • MrsS

    The broad purpose of the Convention was to ensure that the
    perpetrators of terrorist offences should be brought to justice and that they should not
    escape prosecution by crossing national frontiers. The State parties to the 1977
    Convention agreed on a list of offences, which were not to be regarded as political for
    the purposes of extradition.47 Accordingly, excluded from the scope of the phrase
    “offences of a political character” were those offences listed in Schedule 1 to the
    1978 Act (these included murder, kidnapping and offences under the Explosive
    Substances Act 1883).

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117673/extradition-review.pdf

    • MrsS

      So under the domestic extradition act – sections 13 and 81 – Assange would be covered. The 1978 Act is similar to the 2003 Act regarding what is a political offense and one that is terrorism. Definitely two distinct entities. Assange’s lawyers should be able to fully annihilate the Prosecution’s argument that the domestic act does not include political offenses – clearly that’s baloney.

  • bj

    I’m on the down curve in my mood swings, and so everything comes down to one simple observation.

    Any regime that keeps a person in jail without cause, will blithely extradite said person without cause.
    I know — you balked at the word ‘regime’.

    It’s a good thing Craig is on his upswing and he has such an erudite following. I hope they last.

  • Clark

    “The ‘coronavirus’ is a hoax”

    Uh huh? China doesn’t just shut itself down for nothing; an entire tenth of the world’s population is under severe travel restrictions. Magic Robot could at least link to its Magic Comment.

1 2

Comments are closed.