Julian Assange wins right to appeal US extradition

Julian Assange, who was too ill to attend court, will now face many more months in Belmarsh jail until the courts can find time for the full appeal to be heard.

Julian Assange decided not to attend the court on Monday because of health reasons. Picture: AFP

Julian Assange has won the right to appeal his extradition to the US to a full British appeals court.

The significant legal win for the WikiLeaks founder came after the High Court judges ruled they were not satisfied that Assange, 53, would not face discrimination under the US Constitution’s first amendment because of his Australian citizenship.

But Assange, who was too ill to attend the court hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in central London, will face many more months in Belmarsh jail as a remand prisoner until the courts can find time for the full appeal to be heard.

The two judges hearing the case said they had carefully considered the submissions in writing and orally.

Wife of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Stella Assange, arrives for the outcome of Assange's appeal against extradition to the US. Picture: Getty Images

“We have decided to give leave to appeal,’’ they said.

Outside the court a bevy of supporters with placards and some waving Palestinian flag cheered loudly as the news filtered along The Strand with cars honking their horns after being held in traffic.

Stella Assange said outside the court that the US administration “should drop these shameful charges immediately”. She called for her husband’s release saying that the ongoing legal battles was imposing a dreadful toll on his health.

Mrs Assange said that as well as being immediately freed, her husband should receive compensation as well as the Nobel Peace Prize.

She said the only time her children had been able to see their father, including their eldest son Gabriel, who just turned seven, was in the visiting room of Belmarsh prison.

“We are relieved as a family that the courts took the right decision today but how long can this go on for, our eldest son just turned seven,’’ she told supporters.

“All our memories of their father is in the visiting hall of Belmarsh prison.”

She demanded that the Biden administration distance itself “from this shameful prosecution”, adding, “Julian must be freed, the case should be abandoned, there should be compensation, he should be given the Nobel prize and he should walk freely with his feet in the sand and should be able to swim in the sea again.”

WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Krstinn Hfrafsson said the US had a losing case. “Drop the case now, you are losing,” he said.

“It is quite something that a high court in this country has told the US ‘we just don’t believe you’,”.

Further details about the upcoming appeal will be decided on May 24.

Assange’s legal team had successfully argued that US assurances given to the High Court in London “is not a knockout” and that the WikiLeaks founder should be refused extradition to face trial on espionage charges even though the death penalty had been taken off the table.

The two High Court appeal judges had asked the US government to provide three assurances before authorising any extradition. These were based around removing the death penalty and whether Assange would not be discriminated because of his Australian nationality and whether he could rely on the US Constitution’s first amendment for protections.

Julian Assange's father John Shipton in London. Picture: Getty Images

Monday’s ruling means Assange will not face immediate extradition to the US and the case, which has been ongoing for five years, will be fully argued again.

The US wants him to face 18 counts of espionage and computer hacking in relation to alleged offences in 2010 and 2011 for publishing classified US military documents and war logs.

The judges had discounted the US argument that the first amendment rights and nationality issues were not relevant to the extradition.

James Lewis, acting for the US government, had submitted that the issue of the first amendment was irrelevant and that not even Chelsea Manning, whom Assange is accused of conspiring with, had been afforded the first amendment protections.

Mr Lewis told the court: “No one, neither US citizens nor foreign citizens, are entitled to rely on the first amendment in relation to publication of illegally obtained national defence information giving the names of innocent sources to their grave and imminent risk of harm.”

Assange’s counsel said while the US assurances about the death penalty being removed from consideration “were adequate”, other aspects were not.

Pro-Assange protesters hold banners and placards outside The Royal Courts of Justice, in central London, on Monday. Picture: AFP

He said the other two assurances about Mr Assange not being discriminated because of being a foreign national had been “grossly inadequate”.

“It is not a knockout (US assurance),’’ Mr Fitzgerald said.

“The assurance does not promise Mr Assange can rely on first amendment, only that he can raise it and seek to rely upon it … this is not an assurance at all,” Mr Fitzgerald said.

“It assures only that Mr Assange ‘may seek to’ raise the first amendment. It does not even assure that (Assistant US Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia prosecutor) Mr (Gordon) Kromberg will not oppose that argument.”

Mr Fitzgerald criticised Mr Kromberg for being silent, saying his omission to make promises to the court was “significant”.

But he added that even if Mr Kromberg had given a promise, the US court still had overriding discretion.

Mr Fitzgerald said there was “no doubt” the US trial court remains free to raise the point that Assange as a non-US citizen is not entitled to rely on the first amendment.

“It is exclusively within the purview of the US courts, no way the US courts can be bound or debarred from taking the point themselves,’’ Mr Fitzgerald said.

“Even if it did purport to be an assurance of outcome, which it does not, it could not be a binding one. Based on the principle of the separation of powers, the US Court can and

will apply US law, whatever the executive may say or do.”