Assange: Momentary reprieve opens way for more torture and US extradition on appeal – Criminal Law

For a brief moment, the globe was shocked that a UK
court ruled against the extradition of
Australian journalist Julian Assange to the US, where he would face
an 18 count Virginia District Court indictment,
carrying an accumulated maximum penalty of 175 years
imprisonment.

UK District Court Judge Vanessa
Baraitser on 4 January determined
“Assange’s risk of committing suicide, if an extradition
order were to be made, to be substantial”.

So, she wouldn’t condemn him to such a fate, as Washington
can’t guarantee the Wikileaks founder won’t take his own
life whilst in custody.

Yet, in handing down her decision, the judge also addressed each
of the defence’s arguments against the US position and refuted
every one. She made clear that in her mind, Assange’s actions
went beyond that of an “ordinary” journalist, making him
complicit in the theft of US information.

Then, two days later, just as the jubilation over
her decision was subsiding, Baraitser refused to grant Assange bail
prior to the US appealing her ruling, meaning the man who’s
mental health she’d just held in such concern, should remain in
Belmarsh Prison for more prolonged solitary confinement.

It came to light back in January last year, that on being
incarcerated in the US, Assange would be placed under special
administrative measures: a more extreme form of isolation and
surveillance, including greatly limited contact with the outside
world and no internet access.

This would be done under the pretext of US national security.
Indeed, in handing down her judgement, Baraitser said, “I
consider there to be a real risk that Mr Assange will be subject to
restrictive special administrative measures”. And this held
weight on her final decision.

What didn’t come into the picture within the full findings of the extradition case is
that the indictment against Assange was issued by the District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which has jurisdiction
over the north of that state, which is where Assange will likely be
tried.

The significance of this is that northern Virginia is where the
CIA and US defence force organisations are headquartered, as well is the
Pentagon.

So, when putting together a jury for the
trialling of Assange, a lot of current and former US government
intelligence and military employees will be on hand to fill that
bench.

Along with some other examples, Baraitser cited the suicide of
alleged child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein in a Manhattan prison
in August 2019, as proof that the United States penal system
can’t guarantee that Assange won’t take his life on being
detained by it.

So, what the British judge has effectively done is indicated to
the US that its arguments for extradition are sound, but, on
appeal, it needs to make clear to the UK justice system just how it
intends to guard against the Townsville-born Australian committing
suicide whilst in its custody.

And this suggests that Britain is quite happy for the US to
reach across international borders to arrest and convict a
noncitizen over crimes committed on foreign soils, just as long as
Washington ensures that the inmate stays present for the entire
duration of their extended sentence.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.