This article is a collection of letters to various players in the apparent media black Out of the September Assange Hearings
On Court Access
Date: 24 September 20202
From: Niki Konstantinidis
To: King, Laura <Laura.King1@Justice.gov.uk>
Dear Ms King,
In one of your earlier emails to me, you gave me certain assurances as to open justice and stated that ‘[t]he Judge has now confirmed that observers, trial monitors and other interested parties can attend the hearing virtually via the Cloud Video Platform (CVP)’. Said statement indicates that the arrangements for open justice are the Judge’s decision, not that of a private security firm.
It is common knowledge that, to date, the court’s Cloud Video Platform (CVP) service has been fraught with countless problems. If ‘justice must be seen to be done’, CVP is not facilitating the view.
Does the Judge consider it fair and reasonable and in the interests of justice to risk the exclusion of people like Dr Deepa Govindarajan Driver (a legal observer with a mandate from the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers) from the main courtroom? Has the Judge made any formal ruling delegating a portion of her powers over to the said security firm? If so, could you please provide such ruling? If not, please provide evidence of her instructions to said security firm (in particular, insofar as concerns access of the public to the courtrooms in the Assange case).
It is worthwhile noting, once again, that Dr Deepa Govindarajan Driver is not just any member of the public, but a mandated legal observer with high credentials and should be allowed to occupy one of the court’s reserved VIP seats in such a high-profile case of historical importance. The fact that the court is imposing seemingly arbitrary obstacles on such members of the public raises significant questions as to its independence and impartiality.
I would be grateful if you could forward this email to Judge Baraitser and I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Niki Konstantinidis
Date: 24 September 2020
From: King, Laura <Laura.King1@Justice.gov.uk> wrote:
Good morning,
I’m sorry for not replying to you sooner.
Arrangements for the public gallery are managed by security at the Central Criminal Court so you will need to speak to them regarding the number of seats available in the gallery for court 9 and court 10.
I’m sorry I can’t be of more help.
Kind regards
Date: 24 September 2020
To: King, Laura <Laura.King1@Justice.gov.uk>
From: Deepa Govindarajan Driver
Dear Ms King
I have not yet received a reply regarding this request. I am still queueing every day for the 2 public spaces in court 9 and am aware that theVIP seats have now been released to allow the public to have 5 spaces. I would be grateful if i could be permitted to observe in court 10 if more seats may be available in court 10.
Kind regards
Deepa
Date: Sun, Sep 6
From: Deepa Govindarajan Driver
To: King, Laura <Laura.King1@Justice.gov.uk>
Dear Ms King
Please would you arrange to grant me access to court for the Julian Paul Assange hearing. I am a UK – academic researching state and corporate criminality and accountability.
I am the founder of an international network bringing together eminent jurists, academics & other professionals with citizens campaigning for the protection of whistleblowers and against the torture & persecution of Julian Assange. We host public events at which I am the main convenor.
I would like to attend court as an observer to follow the case .
Kind Regards
Dr Deepa Govindarajan Driver
On Court Capacity
On the 23rd September 2020
From: Niki Konstantinidis
Dear Ms King, Mr Jourdan and Disclosure Team,
Back in 2012 when Julian Assange was at the British Supreme Court, the said Court accredited 90 (out of hundreds of requests) journalists to report on the proceedings which were live streamed and more than 14,000 members of the public, legal and journalistic professionals tuned in to watch the live stream the first day alone.
Given the immense hurdles placed on open justice in the Assange case, I once again seek for the Assange hearing to be made available to the public via functional video link with live broadcast. Live-broadcast or live-stream on a public platform is in the best interests of justice and of the public, particularly in these difficult pandemic times (see https://openinfoandideas.wordpress.com/2020/03/27/updated-covid-19-the-uks-coronavirus-act-and-emergency-remote-court-hearings-what-does-it-mean-for-open-justice/).
In my view, it is also worthwhile and appropriate for any such audio/video of the hearing to be also transmitted after the event.
The HMCTS Media Guidance ‘Jurisdictional guidance to support media access to courts and tribunals’ and any other relevant laws, rules and regulations relating to media and open justice, ought to be applied immediately, appropriately and in good faith, even in this case which seems to be applying the Single Justice Procedure in order to fast-track Mr Assange’s extradition. Said HMCTS Media Guidance is available here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/870411/HMCTS_media_guidance_-_Criminal_Court_Guide_March_2020.pdf
Lastly, please add the following request for information to my existing FOI Request.
In addition to my FOI Request dated 22 September 2020, I seek all information relating to:
- the Court’s reporting restrictions on the Assange hearing (particularly, content, date, time and place of publication, and legal basis thereof);
- the total number of journalists accredited by the Court to follow the hearing; their names, names of their media organisations and the Court’s criteria of selection;
- the total number of journalists refused by the Court; their names, names of their media organisations and the Court’s criteria for rejection;
- the total number of observers, trial monitors and other interested parties that applied to be present during the hearing (virtually or physically, by any means of communication); their names, names of their organisations and the Court’s criteria of selection and/or refusal.
I await your prompt reply as this case is of monumental historical importance and the question of open justice is urgent.
Yours faithfully,
Niki Konstantinidis
On the 23rd September 2020
From: Niki Konstantinidis
To: King, Laura <Laura.King1@Justice.gov.uk>
Jourdan.Wong-Muhammad@justice.gov.uk
Dear Ms King and Mr Jourdan,
Please note that I have received no response from the HMCTS Communications team, as promised in your earlier emails.
You informed me in an earlier email that you added my name to the list of those who have requested to attend, that the list would be put before the Judge and that she would make the final decision on who can join via CVP. I was never contacted again regarding this. Please advise as to the basis on which the Judge rejected my application.
Regarding your statement that ‘[t]he Judge has now confirmed that observers, trial monitors and other interested parties can attend the hearing virtually via the Cloud Video Platform (CVP)’, I would be grateful for all information explaining the Judge’s radical turnaround position on this aspect of a public hearing (a public hearing is one of the requirements of article 6 of the ECHR and of the UK Human Rights Act).
Furthermore, please advise as to the basis on which Mr Charlie Jones (twitter handle @CharlieDanJones) was accepted to sit in the main courtroom. In his tweet dated 20/09/2020, he states: ‘FROM BEING IN THE ROOM. I was the first journo to sit in court with Assange for a full day after successfully applying to the court. Here’s some goss’. Does Mr Jones have higher credentials than the reporters gathered in another courtroom at room temperature of approximately 16°C with inadequate or poorly functioning CVP or video equipment and viewing screens? Are all courtrooms in the Central Criminal Court temperature-controlled in the same way and is all technological and viewing equipment of the same standard and quality? What size screens are available in the Central Criminal Court for viewing by the public gallery?
You assured me on 20/08/2020 that ‘[t]here is no intention to exclude anyone from attending (…). The Central Criminal Court will host Julian Assange’s final extradition hearing because they have the best facilities for the press and extensive experience with managing high profile cases’ yet the reality of the court conditions seems to contradict this, unless we have different perceptions as to the meaning of ‘best facilities for the press’. I would be grateful for a list of said ‘best facilities’ and specifics as to their use in the Assange case (including incident reports where said ‘best facilities’ have not been functioning at optimum level and reasons therefor).
The two allocated courts (9 and 10) have sufficient seats for a greater portion of the public to be inside (even with social distancing rules). Please provide the Central Criminal Court’s social distancing rules and policies and state the reasons for not allowing journalists with solid credentials into the main courtroom. The same goes for observers, trial monitors and other interested parties (such as, Amnesty and RSF). Do the Central Criminal Court’s social distancing rules and policies differ from the rules and policies of other UK courts? Do they deviate from mainstream rules and policies applicable in the UK, and if so, in what way and why?
Furthermore, please explain why individuals with health problems are forced to queue for hours and climb up several flights of stairs (when operating lifts are available).
Please handle this email as an FOI request.
For your information, I have attached an Internal Review of FOI 200629017 (on FOI by Ms Emmy Butlin) which states, among other things, that ‘seats cannot be reserved’ and that the public can take notes during the court hearing.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours faithfully,
Niki Konstantinidis
On Arrangements for Julian’s Hearings
On the 20rd September 2020
From: Niki Konstantinidis
Dear Ms King and Mr Jourdan,
I have received no reply to my email below.
Given the importance of the Assange case and the assurances given to me and other members of the public regarding open justice, I urge you to treat my request promptly.
Yours sincerely,
Niki Konstantinidis
On the 9th September 2020
From: Niki Konstantinidis
Dear Ms King,
Further to my previous emails on this matter, I also seek information relating to all or any rulings, instructions or directions limiting, disallowing or prohibiting the public in any way whatsoever from attending the above hearing and/or taking notes in the course of the said hearing, as well as the legal basis thereof.
Information as to the problems with the communications equipment and the reason(s) for their continued inefficacy, malfunctioning or general unfitness for purpose.
I also seek the names of members of the public and/or other entities on the list of those allowed in the public gallery and the reasons for such preferential treatment.
Finally, I seek copies of the witness statements filed with the court.
Yours faithfully,
Niki Konstantinidis
On the 20th August 2020
From: Laura King
Good evening,
I can confirm I am responding on behalf of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and the Central Criminal Court.
My apologies, my email should have stated that the arrangements are still to be confirmed for press, NGOs and all of those who have contacted us to request to attend the hearing, not just the press.
I can confirm that we have received the letter to the Lord Chancellor from Rebecca Vincent regarding arrangements for this hearing and concerns about access to previous hearings.
There is no intention to exclude anyone from attending but it isn’t possible for any court in England or Wales to accommodate all of those who want to attend. The Central Criminal Court will host Julian Assange’s final extradition hearing because they have the best facilities for the press and extensive experience with managing high profile cases.
I can assure you I will contact you once the arrangements are finalised. In the meantime, I will pass your other points and questions to the HMCTS Communications team to respond to.
Kind regards
Laura
On the 20th August 2020
From: Niki Konstantinidis
To: King, Laura <Laura.King1@Justice.gov.uk>;
SouthLondonMC <SouthLondonMC@justice.gov.uk>;
centralcriminalcourt <centralcriminalcourt@Justice.gov.uk>
Cc: Robert Buckland.mp <robert.buckland.mp@parliament.uk>
Subject: Re: Right to a fair trial–Court Hearings defacto ‘secret’ trials–Julian Paul Assange
Dear Ms King,
Thank you for your email which I assume was written also on behalf of SouthLondonMC and CentralCriminalCourt.
I wish to point out that my previous email dated 19 August 2020 (scroll below) does not relate exclusively to access by the press, which, to date, has been systematically denied in fact. This de facto denial of access to the press has been so flagrantly outrageous that Ms Rebecca Vincent, Director of International Campaigns for Reporters Without Borders stated: ‘I have never in my career faced so much difficulty attempting to trial monitor as in Julian Assange’s case.’ (https://www.tareqhaddad.com/news-what-happens-if-julian-assange-dies-in-a-british-prison-journalists-and-monitors-voice-concerns/)
I do not understand why the Westminster Magistrates’ Court or the Central Criminal Court would refuse to address my legitimate concerns relating to systematic violations of Mr Assange’s and the public’s right to open justice. I am sure you are aware of the great importance placed on ‘open justice’ by the sitting magistrate, Ms Baraitser, who forced Mr Assange’s partner Stella Moris and two toddlers into the spotlight (despite evidence resulting from the UC Global case showing that Mr Assange’s young family had been specifically targeted by UC Global and Intelligence services to which information was being fed regularly). My previous emails and the Open Letter by Lawyers4Assange highlight the fact that a public hearing constitutes by law an institutional guarantee, a way of ensuring that the administration of justice is subject to public scrutiny. ‘Public scrutiny’ means scrutiny by the public at large, not just by a handful of accredited journalists.
As stated in my earlier emails, to my knowledge, neither Westminster Magistrates Court nor any other authority has provided any explanation justifying an exclusion of the public from this rendition hearing. If there are any special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice, these have never been stated in open court or elsewhere, and I look forward to being informed in that regard.
Furthermore, please provide the legal basis as to why Mr Assange has been totally silenced in the entire interim period prior to his rendition hearing. Journalists and human rights activist groups wish to interview him as a matter of urgency and the public has a right to be informed, especially as to his prison conditions and other matters relating to his treatment in custody.
I am certain that you appreciate the importance of the public interest in this case, especially since Mr Assange is a journalist on the Council of Europe list of protected journalists.
I look forward to being updated on the ‘arrangements for the press’ as well as being fully informed on the other matters raised in my previous emails below.
Kind Regards,
Niki Konstantinidis
Sent: 19 August 2020 15:30
To: SouthLondonMC <SouthLondonMC@justice.gov.uk>;
robert.buckland.mp@parliament.uk;
centralcriminalcourt <centralcriminalcourt@Justice.gov.uk>
Cc: Lawyers for Assange <lawyers4assange@protonmail.com>
Subject: Re: Right to a fair trial–Court Hearings defacto ‘secret’ trials–Julian Paul Assange
Dear Sir/Madam,
I refer to my previous emails dated 5th January 2020 and 21st January 2020 and 23 May 2020 (please scroll below) and to the Open Letter to the British Government dated 14 August 2020 written by Lawyers4Assange (attached hereto).
My emails and the said letter by Lawyers4Assange highlight the fact that a public hearing constitutes an institutional guarantee, a way of ensuring that the administration of justice is subject to public scrutiny and contributes to respect for the law and the persons involved — not just the accused but also witnesses, experts, and other persons appearing before the court.
The UK’s overt human rights breaches (especially breaches of article 6 of the ECHR) have long been obvious to the naked eye and the functional mind. Even prior to the covid pandemic, to my knowledge, no official person or authority has provided any credible explanation justifying the severe restrictions placed on public hearings involving Mr Assange. With one exception, all hearings involving Mr Assange have been consistently allocated the smallest courtrooms available, away from the scrutinising minds and senses of ordinary people. He is stuck in a box at the back of the court. Technological equipment supposedly facilitating communications is actually doing the opposite. It’s hard to believe that a handful of court participants (and we, the public) are being forced to wade through the mist and fog of judicial concoctions, in a pitiful “Reality Show” trial. The public is tired of tolerating such unparalleled disdain for justice. Therefore, I respectfully request the following:
- the largest courtroom of an accessible court in London must be allocated for the Julian Assange matter, at all times.
- all means of communications (physical and technological) must be in place for the public to be able to attend (physically or virtually) the Assange hearings, and access must be real (including that technological equipment must be in good working order) .
The court must not use the pandemic, as a pretext to impede the public from exercising the full range of its fundamental human rights. The UK has been ‘safely’ ordered back to work in ‘unsafe’ conditions, its children back to schools, consumers back to shops, low-risk detainees back to solitary confinement in high-risk high-security prison cells. The UK cannot use this pandemic to legitimise its human rights breaches. This strategy of clamping down on the public to prevent it from witnessing the UK legal process of fast-track torture and slow-motion extrajudicial killing, is unworkable. It’s also illegal.
Given the foregoing, I am sure you understand why it is imperative for this case to be heard in the largest courtroom available, facilitating access to the greatest amount of people, especially journalists and medical professionals. If there are any “special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice” then the public begs to be informed as to what such special circumstances might be and how exactly they would prejudice the interests of justice.
Furthermore, please provide explanations as to why Mr Assange has been totally silenced in the entire interim period. Journalists and human rights activist groups wish to interview him prior to the 7 September 2020 hearing and the public has a right to be informed, especially as to his prison conditions and other matters relating to his treatment in custody. I am certain that you appreciate the importance of the public interest in this case, especially since Mr Assange is a journalist on the Council of Europelist of protected journalists.
I look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully
Niki Konstantinidis