UK’S Former BREXIT Secretary Says Assange Judge ‘Got the Law Wrong’

On the 22 January 2021, Richard Norton-Taylor reports in Declassified UK David Davis has told Declassified UK that the British legal establishment is “blinkered” to the one-sidedness of the UK/US extradition treaty under which the prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is being heard. Davis, a former chair of the Conservative Party who served as Brexit minister … Continue reading “UK’S Former BREXIT Secretary Says Assange Judge ‘Got the Law Wrong’”

On the 22 January 2021, Richard Norton-Taylor reports in Declassified UK

David Davis has told Declassified UK that the British legal establishment is “blinkered” to the one-sidedness of the UK/US extradition treaty under which the prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is being heard.

Davis, a former chair of the Conservative Party who served as Brexit minister in 2016-18, described the treaty as “massively asymmetric” and said the judge, Vanessa Baraitser, “got the law wrong” by claiming the treaty included political crimes. 

“Parliament made clear in terms that it would not cover political crimes,” he said.

The only circumstances in which alleged crimes with a political ingredient could be pursued under the treaty was when violence was involved, Davis insisted. He has raised the case, which has serious implications for human rights and press freedom – and in the view of Davis, a leading Brexiteer, British sovereignty – as a matter of urgency in the House of Commons.

Davis has been prevented from tabling a motion for debate in the Commons on the grounds that it would breach sub judice rules even though Assange’s case is being heard by a judge alone with no jury potentially liable to be influenced by outside pressure.

Baraitser, the district judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, ruled this month that Assange should not be deported to the US on the particular grounds of his mental health. She said there was a “substantial” risk that Assange would commit suicide if he was incarcerated in the conditions he was likely to be subjected to in the US.

However, she dismissed defence arguments, including that Assange’s motives were to expose US war crimes and other abuses of power. In key passages, Baraitser stated that when the UK Parliament passed the new extradition treaty with the US in 2003, it “clearly took the decision to remove the political offences bar which had previously been available to those facing extradition”. 

She added: “The removal of this bar is a clear indication that Parliament no longer intended for the protection to be available. The [treaty] retained the bar to extradition where the request is made for the purpose of prosecuting the requested person on the basis of their political opinions… but removed the protection for offences which have the character of a political offence.”

Davis contests this. The treaty was negotiated in secret by Tony Blair’s government and rushed through Parliament despite opposition from across the Commons. The “lacuna” in the treaty the judge appeared to have referred to – the “political offences” bar –  was never admitted by ministers at the time the treaty was debated, he said.

‘Massive disparity’

Under the extradition treaty, US prosecutors do not have to prove their case beyond claiming “reasonable suspicion” and there does not have to be any prima facie consideration of the charges in Britain. 

However, for Britain to extradite someone from the US, it has to clear the higher test of demonstrating “probable cause” and that could be challenged in the US courts. The US secretary of state also has a potentially decisive role. 

“There is a massive disparity between justice for foreigners in the US and justice for anybody in this country”, Davis told Declassified.

He told the Commons last year: “Since we agreed the UK-US extradition treaty in 2003, it has been abundantly clear that the British government of the day struck a truly dreadful deal – asymmetric, sometimes ineffective and often unfair on British citizens. Countless examples down the years have shown that, from the NatWest three to Christopher Tappin, from Gary McKinnon to Anne Sacoolas, the person charged with causing the death by dangerous driving of Harry Dunn.”

British prosecutors have sought the extradition from the US of Sacoolas, reportedly a CIA officer who was based at RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire, but this request has been rejected by the US authorities. The British foreign office has said that “the US refusal to extradite Anne Sacoolas amounts to a denial of justice, and she should return to the UK”.

Davis added: “We now risk yet another serious miscarriage of justice with the US extradition request for Dr Mike Lynch, a successful and entrepreneurial British businessmen… Dr Lynch is now facing almost identical criminal charges in the United States, in yet another aggressive attempt by American authorities to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction. Despite the Serious Fraud Office deciding that there is no basis for a prosecution in the United Kingdom, the United States authorities are doggedly pursuing his extradition.”

The US has a tradition of using its broad extradition treaties to cast a wide legal net around the world. It was now extending it to commercial cases and white collar crime, issues that were not debated at all in Parliament, Davis said.

Though the Blair government stressed the importance of the new treaty by pointing to the need to combat paedophilia and terrorists, most US cases were not in pursuit of terrorists or paedophiles or murderers, he said. 

“I was the shadow home secretary at the time and I opposed this treaty, but eventually our party gave in on the grounds that it was about paedophilia and terrorism and violent crime,” he told MPs.

If Assange was extradited, Davis told Declassified, he would be manacled in a police cell and immediately made to appear a criminal. Prosecutors would take the lead presenting their case before a grand jury – a process Davis described as medieval – and he would come under severe pressure to succumb to a plea bargain. He may eventually be sent back to Britain but faced a real prospect of dying in jail.

Davis also pointed out that journalists in the US were protected by the first amendment. Daniel Ellsberg was charged for leaking the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times. The newspaper was never prosecuted. No journalist in Britain or the US was prosecuted for publishing scores of secret documents from America’s National Security Agency or Britain’s GCHQ leaked by Edward Snowden.

The irony, said Davis, is that if Assange were an American journalist in the US, he would not be prosecuted.

Read original article in Declassified UK

Nils Melzer – He would be exposed to oppressive conditions of detention in the US

On the 4th January 2020, RT News posted this interview with Nils Melzer on You Tube Nils Melzer, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture, speaks to RT following the UK court decision on Julian Assange. He discusses whether the WikiLeaks founder’s extradition to the US would have negatively affected his mental health and led … Continue reading “Nils Melzer – He would be exposed to oppressive conditions of detention in the US”

On the 4th January 2020, RT News posted this interview with Nils Melzer on You Tube

Nils Melzer, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture, speaks to RT following the UK court decision on Julian Assange. He discusses whether the WikiLeaks founder’s extradition to the US would have negatively affected his mental health and led to his possible suicide, whether it be the end of the Assange saga should the US lose its appeal, and more.

This interview is also summarised by RT News summarised in the article The system won and spit him out: UN torture rapporteur blasts UK’s near-total embracement of US case for extraditing Assange

A UK court’s refusal to extradite Julian Assange to the US on medical grounds is a blow to journalism since the judge has sided with the US in its justification for prosecuting him, UN rapporteur Nils Melzer told RT. 

Melzer became a supporter of the WikiLeaks founder after digging into his situation in his official capacity as UN Special Rapporteur on torture. He said he is happy for Assange personally, but the Monday ruling, which denied his extradition to the US on espionage charges, was still a huge disappointment for him. 

“It is certainly a victory in the sense ‘a battle won’ but we also have to be aware that the judgement went very, very far in confirming the basic rationale that underlines the US indictment. It essentially criminalizes investigative journalism,” he told RT.

Judge Vanessa Baraitser refused the US extradition request because Assange may take his own life if handed over to the US, but rejected all other arguments of the defense in her ruling. Supporters of the 49-year-old Australian say he is a victim of US persecution and that Washington and its allies are targeting him for exposing their embarrassing and criminal acts. Their mistreatment of him is the reason why his current health condition is so poor, Melzer pointed out. 

“Julian Assange, from what I have known of him, is a very resilient person. But he has been brought to the breaking point by 10 years of joint prosecution for political reasons by Sweden, by the United Kingdom, by the US, by Ecuador. And none of this is being addressed” in the court ruling, he said.

The same governments refused to investigate, on Melzer’s request, what had been done to Assange, despite having an obligation to do so, he said. 

The ruling served as a face-saving exercise for all the governments involved, and it’s likely that nobody will be held accountable, Melzer said. And thus, the message of intimidation is upheld and maintained, even as Assange is protected for the time being from vanishing into a US supermax prison for the rest of his life.  

“I am extremely happy for Julian Assange as a person. But he should not have been brought to a point where he is suicidal,” the UN official stressed. “Now the system is spitting him out … In a sense, the system has succeeded in intimidating the world and passing the message.” 

“This is what is going to happen to you if ever you have the idea of publishing our dirty secrets.”

Melzer noted the irony in the fact that the non-extradition also means his case is likely to be reviewed and tossed out due to gross government misconduct, unlike the cases against Daniel Ellsberg and Tony Russo, the whistleblowers behind the Vietnam War-era Pentagon Papers. Like Assange, Ellsberg was subjected to invasive surveillance by the US. Judge Baraitser decided that spying on Assange’s conversation with lawyers may have been justified by concerns of US national security. 

ABC: A UK court has refused a US extradition request for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. What happens now?

On the 4th January 2020, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser rejected the US Extradition Request finding ‘Assange’s precarious mental health would likely deteriorate further under the conditions of “near total isolation” he would face in a U.S. prison’. The on the 5th January 2020, the Australian broadcasting Corporation (ABC) released three articles Julian Assange’s extradition to … Continue reading “ABC: A UK court has refused a US extradition request for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. What happens now?”

On the 4th January 2020, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser rejected the US Extradition Request finding ‘Assange’s precarious mental health would likely deteriorate further under the conditions of “near total isolation” he would face in a U.S. prison’. The on the 5th January 2020, the Australian broadcasting Corporation (ABC) released three articles

Some snippets read

In a ruling that was more than a decade in the making, a UK court has refused a US request that WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange be extradited to the United States to face 18 charges, including espionage.

Judge Vanessa Baraitser refused the request on the basis of Assange’s mental condition and risk of suicide.

Why did the judge refuse the extradition order?

Assange’s legal team argued during extradition hearings that the entire case was brought on by pressure from the Trump administration, and that Assange’s extradition would pose a severe threat to press freedom.

But it was only the real risk he would commit suicide if he were held in a US maximum security jail that led Judge Baraitser to reject the extradition request.

Judge Baraitser rejected Assange’s lawyers’ arguments that the case was political and an assault on journalism and freedom of speech, saying there was insufficient evidence that prosecutors had been pressured by Trump’s team and little evidence of hostility from the US President.

If the court ruled in his favour, why isn’t he free?

Assange will have to remain in London’s Belmarsh Prison until at least Wednesday, when a bail application will be made at Westminster Magistrates Court.

US prosecutors have also indicated they would appeal the decision, which could take the matter to London’s High Court and eventually the UK’s Supreme Court, meaning it could drag on for many more months.

“We will continue to seek Mr Assange’s extradition,” a US Department of Justice statement said.

Editors Note: Julian Assange is an unconnected detainee held in oppressive conditions in a maximum security prison for over 20 months. Much of the time was in illegal solitary confinement.

Will Donald Trump grant a pardon?

Julian Assange’s family have begun directly pleading with Trump to issue a pardon before he leaves the White House later this month.

Assange’s fiancée, Stella Morris, made a direct plea to the President after the court’s ruling, fearing US authorities would continue to pursue him.

Editor’s Note: There have been many calls in Twitter for President Trump to pardon Julian. Also many questions asking whether President-elect Joe Biden may drop the proceedings being a remanent excess of the Trump administration

Craig Murray: The Assange Verdict: What Happens Now

On the 5th January 2020 Craig Murray reports I fully expect that Julian will be released on bail this week, pending a possible US appeal against the blocking of his extradition. There was discussion of when and how to make the bail application on Monday, after magistrate Vanessa Baraitser announced her decision not to grant … Continue reading “Craig Murray: The Assange Verdict: What Happens Now”

On the 5th January 2020 Craig Murray reports

I fully expect that Julian will be released on bail this week, pending a possible US appeal against the blocking of his extradition.

There was discussion of when and how to make the bail application on Monday, after magistrate Vanessa Baraitser announced her decision not to grant extradition as it would be oppressive on health and welfare grounds. Lead Defence QC Edward Fitzgerald was prepared to make an immediate application for release on bail, but was strongly steered by Baraitser towards waiting a couple of days until he could have the full bail application ready in good order with all the supporting documentation. 

I had the strong impression that Baraitser was minded to grant bail and wanted the decision to be fireproof. I have spoken to two others who were in court who formed the same impression. Indeed, in the past, she has more than once indicated that she will reject a bail application before one has been made. I can think of no reason why she would steer Fitzgerald so strongly to delay the application if there were not a very strong chance she would grant it. She gave him the advice and then adjourned the court for 45 minutes so Fitzgerald and Gareth Peirce could discuss it with Julian, and on return they took her advice. If she were simply going to refuse the bail application, there was no reason for her not to get it over with quickly there and then.

Fitzgerald briefly made the point that Assange now had very little incentive to abscond, as there had never been a successful appeal against a refusal to extradite on medical grounds. Indeed it is very difficult to see how an appeal can be successful. The magistrate is the sole determinant of fact in the case. She has heard the evidence, and her view of the facts of Assange’s medical condition and the facts of conditions in American supermax prisons cannot be overturned. Nor can any new evidence be introduced. The appeal has rather to find that, given the facts, Baraitser made an error in law, and it is difficult to see the argument.

I am not sure that at this stage the High Court would accept a new guarantee from the USA that Assange would not be kept in isolation or in a Supermax prison; that would be contrary to the affidavit from Assistant Secretary of State Kromberg and thus would probably be ruled to amount to new evidence. Not to mention that Baraitser heard other evidence that such assurances had been received in the case of Abu Hamza, but had been broken. Hamza is not only kept in total isolation, but as a man with no hands he is deprived of prosthetics that would enable him to brush his teeth, and he has no means of cutting his nails nor assistance to do so, and cannot effectively wipe himself in the toilet.

Not only is it hard to see the point of law on which the USA could launch an appeal, it is far from plain that they have a motive to do so. Baraitser agreed with all the substantive points of argument put forward by the US government. She stated that there was no bar on extradition from the UK for political offences; she agreed that publication of national security material did constitute an offence in the USA under the Espionage Act and would do so in the UK under the Official Secrets Act, with no public interest defence in either jurisdiction; she agreed that encouraging a source to leak classified information is a crime; she agreed Wikileaks’ publications had put lives at risk. 

On all of these points she dismissed virtually without comment all the defence arguments and evidence. As a US Justice Department spokesman said yesterday:
“While we are extremely disappointed in the court’s ultimate decision, we are gratified that the United States prevailed on every point of law raised. In particular, the court rejected all of Mr Assange’s arguments regarding political motivation, political offence, fair trial, and freedom of speech. We will continue to seek Mr Assange’s extradition to the United States.” That is a fair categorisation of what happened.

Appealing a verdict that is such a good result for the United States does not necessarily make sense for the Justice Department. Edward Fitzgerald explained to me yesterday that, if the USA appeals the decision on the health and prison condition grounds, it becomes open to the defence to counter-appeal on all the other grounds, which would be very desirable indeed given the stark implications of Baraitser’s ruling for media freedom. I have always believed that Baraitser would rule as she did on the substantial points, but I have always also believed that those extreme security state arguments would never survive the scrutiny of better judges in a higher court. Unlike the health ruling, the dispute over Baraitser’s judgement on all the other points does come down to classic errors in law which can successfully be argued on appeal. 

If the USA does appeal the judgement, it is far more likely that not only will the health grounds be upheld, but also that Baraitser’s positions on extradition for political offences and freedom of the media will be overturned, than it is likely that the US will achieve extradition. They have fourteen days in which to lodge the appeal – now thirteen.

An appeal result is in short likely to be humiliating for the USA. It would be much wiser for the US to let sleeping dogs lie. But pride and the wound to the US sense of omnipotence and exceptionalism may drive them to an appeal which, for the reasons given above, I would actually welcome provided Julian is out on bail. Which I expect he shall be shortly.

More analysis of Baraitser’s judgement will follow.

Read original article or support Craig Murray at Craig’s blog

Craig Murray: Julian Assange – Imminent Freedom

On the 5th January 2020, Craig Murray reports It has been a long and tiring day, with the startlingly unexpected decision to block Julian’s extradition. The judgement is in fact very concerning, in that it accepted all of the prosecution’s case on the right of the US Government to prosecute publishers worldwide of US official … Continue reading “Craig Murray: Julian Assange – Imminent Freedom”

On the 5th January 2020, Craig Murray reports

It has been a long and tiring day, with the startlingly unexpected decision to block Julian’s extradition. The judgement is in fact very concerning, in that it accepted all of the prosecution’s case on the right of the US Government to prosecute publishers worldwide of US official secrets under the Espionage Act. The judge also stated specifically that the UK Extradition Act of 2003 deliberately permits extradition for political offences. These points need to be addressed. But for now we are all delighted at the ultimate decision that extradition should be blocked.

The decision was based equally on two points; the appalling conditions in US supermax prisons, and the effect of those conditions on Julian specifically given his history of depression. The media has concentrated on the mental health aspect, and given insufficient attention to the explicit condemnation of the inhumanity of the US prison system. 

I was the only person physically present in the public gallery inside the court, having been nominated by John Shiption to represent the family, aside from two court officials. I am quite sure that I again noted magistrate Baraitser have a catch in her throat when discussing the inhumane conditions in US supermax prisons, the lack of human contact, and specifically the fact that inmates are kept in total isolation in a small cage, and are permitted one hour exercise a day in total isolation in another small cage. I noted her show emotion the same way when discussing the al-Masri torture evidence during the trial, and she seemed similarly affected here.

Julian looked well and alert; he showed no emotion at the judgement, but entered into earnest discussion with his lawyers. The US government indicated they will probably appeal the verdict, and a bail hearing has been deferred until Wednesday to decide whether he will be released from Belmarsh pending the appeal – which court sources tell me is likely to be held in April in the High Court. I should be very surprised if Julian is not released on Wednesday pending the appeal. I shall now be staying here for that bail hearing.

I apologise for not giving a full analysis of the judgement yet, it has all been rather hectic, but wonderful. Here is a brief video giving more detail. I can produce a more considered piece tomorrow

Craig Murray on the Assange Verdict on Live on the Fly with Randy Credico

Read original article or support Craig Murray at Craig’s blog

Assange extradition ruling due January 4th

On the 26th December, Al Burke posted Profound implications for individuals and societies everywhere Nine days from now, on 4 January 2021, a corrupt and malicious British judge is expected to deliver her ruling on whether or not a corrupt and malicious British government may be permitted to deliver Julian Assange into the hands of … Continue reading “Assange extradition ruling due January 4th”

On the 26th December, Al Burke posted

Profound implications for individuals and societies everywhere

Nine days from now, on 4 January 2021, a corrupt and malicious British judge is expected to deliver her ruling on whether or not a corrupt and malicious British government may be permitted to deliver Julian Assange into the hands of a corrupt and malicious U.S. government. 

Anyone who regards that as a matter of little or no importance may perhaps be forgiven — given that, with relatively few exceptions, it has been systematically ignored and/or misrepresented for over a decade by leading political and journalistic actors. In so doing, they have grossly violated their essential democratic functions with, among other things, an unprecedented smear campaign and abuse of judicial power concentrated on a single human being. 

In fact, however, the case has profound implications for individuals and societies everywhere. 

With good reason, the persecution of Julian Assange has been called the Dreyfus affair of our time — although that is probably an understatement. Among the issues at stake:  

  • freedom of the press
  • freedom of speech in general
  • the viability of civil and legal rights
  • abuse of judicial and governmental powers
  • accountability of governments for war crimes and other serious misdeeds.

As an aid to those who wish to acquaint or reacquaint themselves with the facts of the case, a collection of news and analysis concerning the Assange extradition hearing is being assembled in two PDF documents. The first is now available at:  www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/hearnews-1.pdf

Barring medical or other impediments, the second part should be completed within the next few days; recipients of this e-mail will be notified at that time. (The web address is expected to be: www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/docs/hearnews-2.pdf)  

This compilation of published material contains several hundred pages, and few may have enough time or ambition to wade through all of them. But anyone who reads only the relatively few “Selected Highlights” listed on page 1 should thereby acquire a basic knowledge of the main issues and events.

Questions and comments are welcome, and may be addressed to Al Burke via e-mail at editor@nnn.se

Al Burke
editor@nnn.se
076 - 392 19 20
www.nnn.se

The Code for (UK) Crown Prosecutors

Many who followed the September Assange Hearing have published that it was a ‘show trial’. This document outlining the expectations of (UK) Crown Prosecutors to uphold the rule of law is published here so that readers can make up their own mind whether the Crown Prosecution is following its own guidelines. If you feel that … Continue reading “The Code for (UK) Crown Prosecutors”

Many who followed the September Assange Hearing have published that it was a ‘show trial’. This document outlining the expectations of (UK) Crown Prosecutors to uphold the rule of law is published here so that readers can make up their own mind whether the Crown Prosecution is following its own guidelines.

If you feel that the Rule of Law is being violated – what then ?

The-Code-For-Crown-Prosecutors.pdf

The CPS Statement of Ethical Principles for the Public Prosecutor reads

Foreword

Public prosecutors and those external advocates briefed by them, uphold the rule of law and deliver justice for and on behalf of their communities. That function is central to the maintenance of a just, democratic and fair society.

The way in which we perform this role is of crucial importance. It has long been recognised that the prosecutor has a special and overriding responsibility to act without fear, favour or prejudice, in the interests of justice and to provide the cornerstone of an open and fair criminal justice system. The criminal justice system continues to evolve. It is now important to refresh and restate the fundamental principles and values which we believe to be constant and which lie at the heart of all our decisions.

This Statement sets out the ethical principles that underpin and guide our work as public prosecutors. It confirms our commitment to internationally agreed standards of probity, fairness, openness and accountability in our dealings with others, whether they are victims, defendants or other criminal justice legal professionals. In abiding unswervingly by the principles set out in this Statement, we shall continue to serve the public and uphold justice in a rapidly changing world.

Keir Starmer QC
Director of Public Prosecutions
2 November 2009

1. IntroductioN

1.1 Public prosecutors play a key role in the criminal justice system. By their actions in advising on investigations, deciding on whether prosecutions are to be brought, prosecuting those who are accused of criminal offences and assisting the courts in sentencing, prosecutors uphold the rule of law and deliver justice for and on behalf of their communities.

1.2 The manner in which prosecutors discharge their powers and duties directly affects victims, witnesses and defendants as well as society as a whole. The behaviour of prosecutors also affects the ability of others in the criminal justice system the police and other investigators, the courts and defence practitioners, among others to fulfil their own responsibilities.

1.3 The central role that prosecutors play in the criminal justice process places obligations on them to act at all times in accordance with the highest ethical standards and in the best interests of justice. Except where the contrary is expressly stated in the text, this document lays down the standards of conduct and practice which are expected of every prosecutor who prosecutes on behalf of the public.

2. Basic Obligations

2.2 In addition to their duty to comply with the law and the rules of procedure, prosecutors must, at all times, act in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code) and all departmental policies currently in force. They must have due regard to any guidelines issued by the Attorney General.

2.3 As a member of the Bar, the Law Society or as an Associate Prosecutor member of the Institute of Legal Executives, prosecutors must act in accordance with and uphold the Codes of Conduct and professional and ethical standards set by their professional regulators. Prosecutors are in the same position as other professionals providing legal services. Prosecutors are subject to the same duties to the court and to others with whom they have dealings, and they must uphold the same professional standards of conduct and ethics. Prosecutors who are Civil Servants are obliged to act in accordance with the Civil Service Code and, in particular, the statement of core values set out in it.

3. Professional Conduct in General

3.1 When acting in the course of their employment or in accordance with their instructions, prosecutors must, at all times, adhere to the highest professional standards. This means that prosecutors must:

  1. exercise the highest standards of integrity and care;
  2. not conduct the prosecution of a case which is beyond their competence, knowledge or experience;
  3. take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their professional knowledge and skills and keep themselves well-informed and aware of relevant legal developments;
  4. strive to be, and to be seen to be, consistent, independent, fair and impartial;
  5. preserve professional confidentiality at all times, subject to the requirements of the law;
  6. serve and protect the public interest; and
  7. respect the right of all people to be held equal before the law – prosecutors must never act in a way that unjustifiably favours or discriminates against particular individuals or interests.

3.2 Prosecutors must perform their duties without fear, favour or prejudice. They must:

  1. take decisions based upon an impartial and professional assessment of the available evidence, independently and with objectivity within the framework laid down by the law, the Code, all departmental policies currently in force and all guidance issued by or on behalf of the Attorney General; and
  2. take into account all relevant circumstances, irrespective of whether they are to the advantage or disadvantage of the defendant.

3.3 Prosecutors must not knowingly participate in, or seek to influence, the making of a prosecution decision in regard to any case where their personal or financial interests or their family, social or other relationships would influence their conduct as a prosecutor. They should not act as a prosecutor or advise in cases in which they, their family or business associates have a personal, private or financial interest or association.

3.4 Prosecutors must not act as an advocate in any case in which their action or decision is the subject matter of litigation, or in which, for any other reason, they are likely to be called as a witness.

3.5 Prosecutorial discretion in deciding whether to initiate or continue a prosecution, in the selection of charges, in the acceptance of pleas and in any other matter, shall be exercised independently and impartially, in accordance with the law, and having due regard to the Code and all departmental policies currently in force. When making such decisions, prosecutors must not allow themselves to be influenced by individual, sectional or political interests or media pressures.

3.6 Public prosecutors who exercise rights of audience in the higher courts are entitled ultimately to consult the Attorney General as guardian of the public interest if they have reason to doubt the propriety of any action or proposed action in a case proceeding in the higher courts for which they have responsibility. If an employed prosecutor considers that they are involved in such a matter, they must first discuss their concerns with their line managers before contacting the Attorney General.

3.7 Prosecutors must report to their line manager (or instructing prosecutor, if an external advocate) any improper attempt to influence their decision-making, or where any person does an act with the intention of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Prosecutors should also draw to the attention of their line manager or their instructing prosecutor any potential conflict of interest of which they are aware which could reasonably be perceived as affecting their independent judgment in any case of which they have conduct.

4. Professional Conduct in the Context of Criminal Proceedings

4.1 When exercising a right of audience before any court or conducting litigation in relation to any court proceedings, prosecutors have a duty to the court in question to act with independence in the interests of justice.

4.2 Prosecutors must maintain the highest standards of fairness and impartiality at all times. In particular, they must uphold the principle of a defendants right to a fair trial as enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

4.3 In relation to victims and witnesses, prosecutors must fulfil the obligations and responsibilities set out in the Victims Code of Practice and The Prosecutors’ Pledge and any other relevant guidance.

4.4 Prosecutors must discharge their duties to the courts, witnesses, defendants and their legal representatives, the police or other investigative agency, whether nationally or internationally, with respect and courtesy.

4.5 Prosecutors must perform their duties fairly, consistently, effectively and efficiently. Throughout the proceedings, including when giving pre-charge advice to investigators, prosecutors must:

  1. remain impartial and objective;
  2. when deciding whether to start or continue criminal proceedings, apply the Full Code Test as set out in the Code (except in those circumstances where the Threshold Test may properly be applied). Prosecutors must not start or continue a prosecution unless the requirements of the appropriate Test (whether the Threshold or the Full Code Test) are fully met;
  3. in accordance with the law and the requirements of the Code, give due consideration to alternatives to prosecution;
  4. subject to the requirements of a fair trial, consider the rights, views, legitimate interests, privacy and concerns of victims and witnesses, when their personal interests are, or might be, affected;
  5. seek to ensure that victims and witnesses are informed of their rights, as far as they reasonably can;
  6. having due regard to the rights of the defendant, prosecute firmly and fairly and not beyond what is indicated by the evidence;
  7. bearing in mind the Courts discretion to exclude improperly obtained evidence, decline to use evidence reasonably believed to have been obtained through unlawful methods which constitute a grave violation of the suspect’s or other person’s human rights, against anyone other than those who applied such methods;
  8. draw to the attention of the appropriate authority any instance where a public official may have committed a criminal offence or acted improperly in the course of a criminal investigation; and
  9. render mutual legal assistance to the prosecution services and investigative agencies of other jurisdictions, in accordance with the law and in a spirit of mutual co-operation.

4.6 To ensure the fairness and effectiveness of prosecutions, prosecutors must:

  1. endeavour to ensure that all reasonable enquiries are made and the results disclosed in accordance with law, whether that points towards the guilt or the innocence of the defendant;
  2. endeavour to ensure that the facts are presented fairly and that all relevant authorities are drawn to the courts attention, whether they are in the favour of the prosecution or defence;
  3. endeavour to ensure that evidence which is favourable to the defendant or which undermines the prosecution case is disclosed as soon as reasonably practicable in accordance with the law, the Attorney Generals Guidelines on Disclosure and the requirements of a fair trial;
  4. assist the court in the administration of justice and not deliberately, knowingly or recklessly mislead the court;
  5. endeavour to ensure that the criminal justice process operates as expeditiously as possible, being consistent with the interests of justice; and
  6. bring to the attention of the court any matters of law relevant to sentence in accordance with the Attorney Generals Guidelines on the Acceptance of Pleas and the Prosecutors Role in the Sentencing Exercise.

5. Public Prosecutors who hold Judicial Appointments

5.1 Public prosecutors who hold a judicial appointment will be subject to the terms and conditions of judicial appointment and to the Codes of Conduct applicable to their branch of the profession.

5.2 When employed prosecutors are appointed to judicial office, they carry out the duties and responsibilities of that office in their personal capacity and not as an employee of the Service. Prosecutors holding a judicial appointment are not accountable to the Service for their conduct or their decisions whilst acting in that capacity and the Prosecution Service does not have any part to play in their judicial decisions.

6. Failure by External Advocates to Observe the Statement of Ethical Principles

6.1 Failure by any external advocate instructed by a public prosecutor to adhere to the principles set out in this document may result in the public prosecutor withdrawing current instructions from them and not briefing that advocate again. Where the public prosecutor thinks it appropriate, any breach of this Statement of Ethical Principles by an external advocate will be referred to the appropriate professional regulator for its consideration. (This paragraph should be read in conjunction with paragraph 4.10 of The Farquharson Guidelines: The Role and Responsibilities of the Prosecution Advocate).

6.2 Any enquiry by an external advocate in relation to this Statement of Ethical Principles, or any request for further guidance in respect of areas of potential conflict, should be addressed to the public prosecutor from whom the advocate has received instructions.

7. Review of this Statement

7.1 This Statement will be reviewed regularly to ensure that it continues to reflect the appropriate standards that can be expected of all those who practise as public prosecutors.

This Statement of Ethical Principles has been informed by

  • Guidelines for the Role of Prosecutors (1990) adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders;
  • Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors (1999) – International Association of Prosecutors as recognised and promulgated by the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in April 2008;
  • Council of Europe Recommendation 19 (2000) on the Role of the Public Prosecution in the Criminal Justice System;
  • The Budapest Guidelines (2005) adopted by the Conference of Prosecutors General of Europe;
  • The Code of Conduct for the Bar of England and Wales (2004);
  • The Solicitors Code of Conduct (2007);
  • The Code of Conduct and Supporting Guides to Good Practice issued by the Institute of Legal Executives (2008);
  • The Farquharson Guidelines: The Role and Responsibilities of the Prosecution Advocate (2002);
  • The CPS Code of Conduct; and
  • The CPS Disciplinary Policy.

Julian Assange’s extradition hearing marred by barriers to open justice

On the 9th October 2020, Reporters without Boarders reports: After monitoring four weeks of evidence in the US extradition proceedings against Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) reiterates concern regarding the targeting of Assange for his contributions to journalism, and calls again for his release. Expert testimony highlighted the political nature of the … Continue reading “Julian Assange’s extradition hearing marred by barriers to open justice”

On the 9th October 2020, Reporters without Boarders reports:

After monitoring four weeks of evidence in the US extradition proceedings against Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) reiterates concern regarding the targeting of Assange for his contributions to journalism, and calls again for his release. Expert testimony highlighted the political nature of the case against Assange, the US government’s lack of evidence for alleged harm caused, and urgent humanitarian concerns related to Assange’s physical and mental health. RSF also documented extensive barriers to open justice, which marred proceedings. The extradition decision is expected on 4 January 2021. 

“We are alarmed by what we have witnessed in the US extradition case against Julian Assange. We firmly believe Assange has been targeted for his contributions to journalism, and the case against him is clearly a political application of the Espionage Act – which should present a bar to extradition. We also have serious humanitarian concerns, which make Assange’s extradition a possible matter of life or death. Finally, we have concerns about extensive barriers to open justice, which made it nearly impossible for us to do our jobs as NGO observers and monitor proceedings. We call again for the charges against Assange to be dropped, and for him to be immediately released – and certainly not extradited to the US,” said RSF’s Director of International Campaigns, Rebecca Vincent.

Barriers to open justice

Despite severe restrictions imposed on observers by the court, RSF was the only NGO to monitor the evidentiary portion of the US extradition proceedings against Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange, from 7 September to 1 October at the Central Criminal Court (the Old Bailey) in London. With interventions from diplomatic missions and political observers, and support from grassroots activists who helped hold places in the queue from the early hours each morning, RSF representatives were able to access the very few seats made available in the public gallery of the overflow courtroom for most sittings of the 18 days of proceedings.

RSF has been in correspondence with UK government officials as well as the court about access to proceedings against Assange since the start of the year. This was first in relation to the first week of proceedings at Woolwich Crown Court in February, in which legal arguments were heard, then with regard to remote access to administrative hearings that took place between March and August, and finally seeking physical and remote access to the evidentiary portion of the extradition hearing in September. At each stage, the court has refused to recognise the role of NGO observers as any different to the public or make specific provisions to allow for professional monitoring of proceedings.

RSF was able to monitor all sittings in proceedings at Woolwich Crown Court from 24 to 27 February only by queuing outside the court for hours each morning, in winter weather, from as early as 5:30 am, to gain access to the 14 spaces made available to members of the public in the public gallery. RSF also attempted to remotely monitor each subsequent administrative hearing via a telephone conference system that was not fit for purpose. When it worked, the quality of the audio connection was insufficient to properly follow proceedings. On three occasions (4 May, 27 July, and 14 August), the court failed to connect the line at all, leaving journalists and observers on hold.

In a letter to RSF dated 4 September, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland stated: “I’m sorry to learn of the issues that NGOs encountered whilst trying to access hearings at Woolwich Crown Court and Westminster Magistrates’ Court,” as well as “I do accept, and apologise that errors were made by Westminster Magistrates’ Court on three occasions where the conference telephone line was not connected to allow accredited media access to proceedings.” Buckland noted that a video platform would be used to allow accredited members of the media access to the hearing virtually, and that the public gallery would be open for members of the public and observers, on a first come, first serve basis.

On 1 September, RSF had been notified by a court official that “the Judge has now confirmed that observers, trial monitors and other interested parties can attend the hearing virtually via the Cloud Video Platform (CVP).” RSF was later told that only one representative per organisation could be registered, after which registration for Director of International Campaigns Rebecca Vincent was confirmed. 

However, at the start of proceedings on 7 September, RSF received a further communication from the court, stating: “The judge has regretfully decided not to grant requests for members of the public to attend the Julian Assange hearing via CVP…she is concerned about her ability to maintain the integrity of the court if members of the public are able to attend the hearing remotely.” On 8 September, Vincent nonetheless attempted to access the CVP via the link that had been provided, and was admitted to the waiting room before being removed and unable to log in again. Amnesty International and other NGOs also reported having their access revoked, along with a number of political observers.

This meant that the only way for NGO observers to monitor proceedings was to gain access to one of the very few spots in the public gallery of the overflow courtroom, next to the courtroom where proceedings were taking place. RSF observers could only view a small television screen from across a large room, on which it was often not possible to see who was speaking or even whether the judge was sitting. It was not possible to clearly see Assange in the glass dock he was held in at the back of the courtroom, or assess his well being, whether he could adequately follow proceedings, or if he could communicate easily with his legal representation – all of which had been issues in the February proceedings.

Due to Covid distancing measures, the court made five spaces available to members of the public, in a gallery with a total of 36 seats. Communications from the court repeatedly stated that these would be allocated on a first come, first serve basis – however this was not respected in practice. For nearly three weeks of proceedings, three seats were held back for unspecified “VIPs” for the first hour and a half each morning, and the first half an hour each afternoon, meaning that often only two members of the public (including NGO observers) were present in the courtroom. After RSF learned that the VIPs were in fact diplomats who were unaware these seats were being held for them, diplomatic intervention with the court finally resulted in all five seats being made fully available to the public from 24 September.

Technical problems also plagued proceedings, particularly during the first week. Hours of scheduled witness testimony were lost due to the court’s inability to connect witnesses remotely via video. When the system was working correctly, audio problems such as a lag in the connection or reverberation sometimes still made proceedings difficult to follow. At one point the audio feed to the overflow courtroom cut for around 10 minutes, meaning the press and observers missed an important argument over whether evidence would be accepted from Khaled El-Masri, a witness for the defence who was found by the European Court of Human Rights to have been mistakenly abducted by the Macedonian police and subjected to torture at the hands of the US authorities.

Expert testimony 

A total of 47 witnesses gave evidence to the court (44 for the defence and three for the prosecution); 22 of these testified in person, and the others had their statements read into the record. Evidence focused on a wide range of aspects of the case, including the motivation in the case against Assange, the circumstances of the publication of leaked documents, technical aspects of how the documents were accessed, what sentencing Assange would likely face in the US, surveillance measures targeting Assange and his visitors at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, his state of mental and physical health, and what detention conditions he would be subjected to in the US.

Crucially, the prosecution – for the US government – failed to produce any evidence of actual physical harm caused to anyone as the result of Wikileaks’ publication of leaked documents, severely undermining their claim that Assange knowingly put sources at risk. Testimony from Khaled El-Masri argued that to the contrary, the information published by Wikileaks exposed the atrocities to which he was subjected and has served as important evidence in his pursuit of justice.

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg gave powerful testimony about the political nature of the case against Assange, whom he emphasised would not get a fair trial. He stated that he had not received a fair trial, and no one convicted under the Espionage Act could as it lacks a public interest defence. He rejected attempts to portray the Pentagon Papers as “good” and Wikileaks as “bad,” drew similarities between the two cases, and expressed solidarity with Assange. Noam Chomsky’s statement, read into the record, similarly emphasised the political motivations in the case against Assange – a sentiment echoed by several other witnesses.

Journalist John Goetz testified that Wikileaks had republished the unredacted diplomatic cables, which had been published in the first instance by website Cryptome and a number of media outlets. None of these outlets have faced adverse legal consequences for publishing the documents – only Wikileaks. A statement read into the record by Cryptome founder John Young confirmed that the unredacted files remain on the website to this day, and that Cryptome has never been approached by US law enforcement suggesting their publication was illegal.

Among the most alarming evidence was from several medical experts who testified about Assange’s state of mental and physical health, making clear his vulnerability and strengthening the case for his humanitarian release. Professor Michael Kopelman and other experts gave evidence on Assange’s severe depression, frequent suicidal thoughts, auditory hallucinations, PTSD, anxiety, and sleeping disorder. They emphasised that if extradited to the US, Assange was very likely to attempt suicide. Dr Nigel Blackwood, for the prosecution, did not dispute these conditions, but attempted to downplay their severity and argued that he believed Assange could control his suicidal impulses in US detention.

Dr Sondra Crosby echoed serious concern for Assange’s mental health, and agreed with the medical findings of UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer’s report, emphasising the psychological trauma Assange had experienced. She also expressed serious concern about Assange’s physical health, particularly noting that his osteoporosis left him at high risk of suffering fractures if extradited to the US, also increasing his risk of mortality.

A number of experts spoke of Assange’s autistic traits, and the prosecution attempted to argue that Assange’s ability to speak at events or give media interviews was inconsistent with his Asperger’s diagnosis – a notion countered by several witnesses.

Former US bureau of prisons employee Maureen Baird painted a chilling picture of the inhumane conditions Assange could face if subjected to Special Administrative Measures in detention in the US, including extremely limited human contact, possible solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day, recreation only in another cell, and phone calls to his family only once a month. Defence attorney Yancey Ellis testified on specific conditions in the Alexandria Detention Center, where Assange is likely to be detained if extradited – the same facility in which Chelsea Manning attempted suicide.

Next steps

At the end of the evidentiary portion of proceedings, the judge granted the defence four weeks to submit a written closing argument, after which the prosecution will have two further weeks to respond. The extradition decision is set to be given in a hearing at the Old Bailey at 10 am on 4 January 2021. Assange is next due to appear before the Westminster Magistrates’ Court for a callover hearing on 29 October. 

RSF will continue to monitor proceedings in the case against Assange and will ask the court to reconsider its position on access for professional NGO observers, as the court’s failure to recognise and accommodate this role presents serious concerns for open justice. 

Read original article in Reporters Without Boarders

Praise for Consortium News’ Coverage of the Assange Hearing

On the 5th October 2020, Consortium News published feedback from readers on their coverage of the Assange hearings Readers and viewers let us know what they thought of our coverage of the Julian Assange extradition hearing. We worked hard to bring you print and video coverage of just about every aspect of the Media Trial … Continue reading “Praise for Consortium News’ Coverage of the Assange Hearing”

On the 5th October 2020, Consortium News published feedback from readers on their coverage of the Assange hearings

Readers and viewers let us know what they thought of our coverage of the Julian Assange extradition hearing.

We worked hard to bring you print and video coverage of just about every aspect of the Media Trial of the Century, a month of hearings from the Old Bailey to determine whether Julian Assange will be extradited to the United States. 

Here are just a few of the readers’ and viewers comments on the website and on our YouTube channel. Join in the praise by helping us meet our 25th Anniversary Fall Fund Drive target as we continue our Assange coverage, as well as Election 2020 and the most crucial international and U.S. news events.

Editor’s Note: And its not just the hearings. A search for Assange on Consortium News yields 14,700 entries

Read original article on Consortium News

Key Assange prosecution witness is part of academic cluster which has received millions of pounds from UK and US militaries

On 2nd October 2020, Matt Kennard and Mark Curtis report One of the US prosecution’s key medical witnesses in the Julian Assange hearing, who claimed that Assange’s risk of suicide is ‘manageable’ if extradited to the US, works for an academic institute that is funded by the UK Ministry of Defence and linked to the … Continue reading “Key Assange prosecution witness is part of academic cluster which has received millions of pounds from UK and US militaries”

On 2nd October 2020, Matt Kennard and Mark Curtis report

One of the US prosecution’s key medical witnesses in the Julian Assange hearing, who claimed that Assange’s risk of suicide is ‘manageable’ if extradited to the US, works for an academic institute that is funded by the UK Ministry of Defence and linked to the US Department of Defence, it can be revealed.

  • US prosecution witness works at Institute of Psychiatry funded by UK military, although is not personally funded by it.
  • Witness leads research group which works “in collaboration” with centre set up with US Department of Defence funding.
  • He co-leads the group with academic whose work is often funded by UK military.
  • Institute’s partner department is closely linked to the Anglo-American military and intelligence communities, and created a course for British intelligence officers on behalf of the UK government.
  • Responding to Declassified, witness says: “I had no conflicts [of interest] to declare.”
  • Revelations come following end of Old Bailey hearing on Assange’s US extradition.

Dr Nigel Blackwood, a reader in forensic psychiatry at King’s College London (KCL), told the extradition hearing in London last week that Julian Assange was suffering only “moderate” depression. 

Giving evidence as an expert witness for the US prosecution, Dr Blackwood rebutted other experts’ findings on the seriousness of Assange’s condition, adding his suicide risk was “manageable”. He told the court: “Mr Assange has proved himself to be a very resilient and very resourceful man, and he has underplayed that.” 

At the request of US prosecution lawyers, Dr Blackwood examined Assange during two meetings in March. In his written submission to the court, he said that it would “not be unjust” to extradite Assange to the US.

Declassified has discovered that Dr Blackwood’s professional work at KCL is linked to a cluster of academic groups which are funded by or associated with the British and American militaries. 

Declassified has seen a contract showing that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) provided more than £2-million to KCL’s Institute of Psychiatry for the years 2013-16 for a project which KCL is forbidden to mention in public without MOD approval. It is likely the contract has been renewed and is still active.

See whole article in the Daily Maverick Declassified