WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange given temporary reprieve over extradition
Court seeks assurances from the US that Assange will be given First Amendment Rights, will not prejudiced at trial because of his nationality, and will not be subject to the death penalty
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been given a reprieve from extradition to the US where he faces charges that could lead to 175 years in jail over WikiLeaks’ publication of leaked documents that revealed alleged US war crimes.
Two judges said today that the court would delay proceedings against Assange to ask the US for assurances that the WikiLeaks founder would not be subject to the death penalty and would be granted rights under the US Constitution.
The 52-year-old is charged with 17 counts under the US Espionage Act 1917 and one count under the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act over WikiLeaks’ 2010 publication of documents leaked by US Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
The case – which represents the first time the US Espionage Act has been actively used to prosecute someone for publishing leaked government documents – has led to warnings from major news outlets and campaign groups that it would have a chilling effect on the work of journalists.
Victoria Sharp, president of the Kings Bench Division of the High Court, and Justice Johnson dismissed most of Assange’s points of appeal in a judgment handed down on 26 March 2024, but found three grounds that had a “real prospect of success”.
Court seeks US assurances
The court has asked the US government to give diplomatic assurances that will allow Assange’s extradition to the US to go ahead. If the US fails to deliver the assurances, Assange, an Australian citizen, will be allowed to appeal against his extradition in the court of appeal.
The court is seeking assurances from the US that the WikiLeaks founder will be granted free speech rights under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, that he will not receive an unfair trial because of his nationality, and that he will not be subject to the death penalty if the extradition goes ahead.
Speaking after the verdict, his wife, Stella Assange, said the UK courts were trying to resolve the case by “passing the buck” back to the US.
“There’s no protection for the individual, even when there are political offences brought to the extradition. That’s the decision,” she said.
“It is clear that the British courts are uncomfortable. When you have a political case, the justice system behaves bizarrely,” she added.
Political offence
In a 66-page verdict, the court rejected Assange’s arguments that under the UK-US Extradition Treaty, the WikiLeaks founder cannot be extradited for political offences.
The judges found that Parliament had chosen not to incorporate the US-UK Extradition Treaty, which prohibits political extraditions, into the Extradition Act 2003.
They said it was not an abuse of process, or contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, to seek extradition for a political offence. The judges also concluded that Assange had failed to show he was being extradited because of his political opinions.
The judgment found that the charges against Assange were limited to the publication of documents – supplied by US Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning in 2010 – that identified human intelligence sources.
“There is a strong public interest in protecting the identities of human intelligence sources, and no countervailing public interest justification for publication has been identified,” it said.
There were strong reasons to conclude that the applicant’s activities did not accord with the “tenets of responsible journalism”.
The court also refused an application to present new evidence over CIA plans to kidnap Assange from the US Embassy. The judges said evidence of the CIA plans had already been taken into account and was not relevant to the extradition process.
Assange had argued that former CIA director Mike Pompeo had embarked on a long-term campaign against WikiLeaks and Assange, referring to WikiLeaks as a “non-state hostile intelligence service”.
An investigation by Yahoo News, which spoke to 30 former US intelligence and national security officials, later disclosed the CIA had discussed plans to abduct Assange and potentially to assassinate him.
Stella Assange and Kristinn Hrafnsson, editor in chief of WikiLeaks, attending Julian Assange’s appeal against extradition at the High Court
Political ‘at every level’
Speaking after the verdict, Stella Assange said the court appeared to be tying itself in knots by passing the buck back to the US.
“It’s political on every level,” she said. “Notably, the evidence that Julian was the victim of a murder conspiracy by the US government under the Trump administration and Mike Pompeo was judged not to be relevant to this extradition, which is, of course, incomprehensible,” she said.
Chilling impact on press freedom
Journalists, news publishers and campaigners said today that Assange’s extradition, if it goes ahead, would have a chilling impact on journalism.
Trevor Timm, president of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said most major news publications and civil liberties organisations had warned that the prosecution would impact core rights to press freedom.
“Assange’s prosecution by the US is for activities that are daily work for investigative journalists – finding sources with evidence of criminality and helping them to get their stories out into the world. If Assange is prosecuted, free expression the world over will be damaged”
Michelle Stanistreet, National Union of Journalists
“Assange’s conviction in American courts would create a dangerous precedent that the US government can and will use against reporters of all stripes who expose its wrongdoing or embarrass it. The Biden administration should take the opportunity to drop this dangerous case once and for all,” he said.
Michelle Stanistreet, president of the UK National Union of Journalists, welcomed the decision to give Assange a reprieve, but warned that his extradition would damage journalism.
“Assange’s prosecution by the US is for activities that are daily work for investigative journalists – finding sources with evidence of criminality and helping them to get their stories out into the world. If Assange is prosecuted, free expression the world over will be damaged,” she said.
Stella Assange agreed the case would have ramifications for journalists around the world.
“This case serves no purpose other than to intimidate journalists all around the world, not just here, not just in the United States. It is sending a chilling effect that is creating not just a legal precedent but a political precedent,” she said.
On the second day of his extradition hearing at the Old Bailey, judge informs the WikiLeaks founder he could be removed and potentially banned from court for interrupting witnesses.
US journalism historian and investigative journalist Mark Feldstein tells a UK court that use of the Espionage Act against Assange will have wide implications for the press.
Nigel Blackwood, NHS consultant psychiatrist, told the Old Bailey court that although WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange had ‘moderate depression’ and autistic traits it was ‘not unjust’ extradite him.
