Prosecution of Assange may be severely compromised under English law, agrees barrister

Support us and go ad-free

A barrister and adviser to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange argues that any intended prosecution of him by the US or Sweden may have been severely compromised. And as such, that would invalidate any extradition request from either of those countries.

Consequences of US political interference

Commentary on Assange and WikiLeaks by US politicians has been rife. For example, CIA chief Mike Pompeo described WikiLeaks as a “hostile intelligence service”. There have also been numerous threats (including death threats) against Assange from the US, including by senior politicians:

  • Former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin demanded that Assange be “hunted down like the Al-Qaeda leadership”.
  • In 2010, former US vice-president Joe Biden referred to Assange as a “high-tech terrorist”.
  • Former political operative and media pundit Bob Beckel suggested in 2011 that the US should assassinate Assange, saying: “A dead man can’t leak stuff. This guy’s a traitor… treasonous. And he has broken every law of the United States… And I’m not for the death penalty, so… there’s only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch”.

Australian lawyer and Assange adviser Greg Barns told The Canary:

These threats are clearly material to a permanent stay application.

Barns explained how, if it can be shown that prejudicial comment reached saturation point, there’s an argument for saying it would be impossible for Assange to get a fair trial.

In other words, these threats by leading figures would likely prejudice any case brought against Assange.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free
Privileged communications compromised

The concept of legal professional privilege refers to client-lawyer confidentiality and remains a cornerstone of the English legal system. If that confidentiality is breached, any legal case under consideration could be regarded as invalid.

Ecuador, however, has reportedly agreed to hand over all documents and other material belonging to Assange to the US. This move has received significant criticism:

WikiLeaks previously suggested that these developments began with a fake news story in the Guardian:

The Canary previously reported on this fake news story, revealing that former Ecuadorian consul Fidel Narváez was adamant that Manafort had never visited the London embassy. We followed that article with evidence of who was behind the fake news.

Now, internationally renowned judge Baltasar Garzón has condemned this collusion between Ecuador and the US:

Overreach of CPS

And it doesn’t end there.

The Criminal Prosecution Service (CPS) may have also overstepped its role in its liaison over several years with its Swedish equivalent in regard to alleged sexual offences committed by Assange. (Swedish authorities have just reopened one investigation at the request of the alleged survivor’s lawyer.)

In August 2012, in response to an article saying Sweden could withdraw the warrant against Assange, a CPS staffer (name redacted) warned Sweden’s director of public prosecutions Marianne Ny:

Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!

Assange’s lawyer Jen Robinson commented:

We had been offering the Swedish prosecutors Assange’s testimony since October 2010. We didn’t know at the time that the CPS was advising them not to take up the offer.

The sheer amount of email exchanges between the two prosecution services is possibly unprecedented:

But these are by no means all the correspondence, for it is believed many emails were destroyed by the CPS. According to Robinson:

The CPS has disclosed some material which is very limited. We know there is more.

This overreach could be considered political. The Canary believes that no allegations of sexual assault or rape should ever become politicised by either side.


The above offers three examples of why the authorities in the US, Britain and Sweden may have compromised the cases they could present against Assange. And the charges referred to in the US indictment against Assange can be challenged too, in terms of their viability.

But whatever proceeds next, the law must always demonstrate it is above political interference. To do otherwise threatens the integrity of that law and does a great disservice to all parties.

Featured image via Lonpicman-Wikimedia Commons

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. Julian Assange has about as much chance of a fair trial as Boris Johnson has of becoming England Football Captain. The whole thing is just a farce with next to none legal justification but extreme amounts of political spite. The US tell us and Sweden what to do and we follow along just like the subservient idiotic little nation we have become. Ecuador did the same but at least they got cash up front. Assange should be given a medal for disclosing the murder and torture of civilians in Iraq not persecuted.

    2. Not clear why Paul Close, the UK Government Lawyer leading the attack, has redacted his name from the exhibits.

      We know what he’s ashamed of but he’s supposed to have confidence in his case regardless what the rest of the world thinks. Courage mon brave.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.