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

Justice
Tom Coburg

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.

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.

Compromised

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

We need your help ...

The coronavirus pandemic is changing our world, fast. And we will do all we can to keep bringing you news and analysis throughout. But we are worried about maintaining enough income to pay our staff and minimal overheads.

Now, more than ever, we need a vibrant, independent media that holds the government to account and calls it out when it puts vested economic interests above human lives. We need a media that shows solidarity with the people most affected by the crisis – and one that can help to build a world based on collaboration and compassion.

We have been fighting against an establishment that is trying to shut us down. And like most independent media, we don’t have the deep pockets of investors to call on to bail us out.

Can you help by chipping in a few pounds each month?

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.