Assange prosecution demonstrates blatant contempt for UK court. Time to call it a day.

Julian Assange
Tom Coburg

On 24 June 2020, the US department of justice (DoJ) published what it calls a ‘superseding indictment’ against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as part of its extradition case. Three days later, The Canary published information accusing the DoJ of withholding key information in that indictment.

It has now transpired that the DoJ, contrary to standard legal practice, failed to lodge that indictment with the UK court and provide a copy to Assange’s lawyers. This failure could lead to serious consequences for the prosecution.

“Incompetence”

In a tweeted video, WikiLeaks‘ editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson expressed his astonishment that the superseding indictment had not been lodged with the UK court and, moreover, that a copy had not been provided to Assange’s lawyers:

Barrister Greg Barns SC, an adviser to the Australian Assange campaign, told The Canary:

The failure to file the superseding indictment with the court before the hearing yesterday was extraordinary. It was given to the media it seems before giving it to the parties that matter. This was either an act of real incompetence or designed to further delay this case where you have Julian Assange languishing in circumstances that are damaging his health.

“Glorified press release”

WikiLeaks went on to describe the indictment as nothing more than a “glorified press release”:

Indeed, the document begins by referring to “general allegations”. Published along with an accompanying press release, at this stage in the proceedings the release of these documents could be described as an abuse of process. This is because they raise detailed arguments more suitable for the actual extradition hearing, where they can be subject to challenge by the defence.

And in its press release, WikiLeaks unequivocally states:

The US government is showing contempt both for the court and the defence lawyers by trying to run a prosecution in the press rather than in front of the judge.

In a video interview with The Hill, co-founder of the Intercept Glenn Greenwald provides an overview of the DoJ’s latest allegations:

Non-disclosure

Non-disclosure of crucial information is a serious allegation to be levied against a prosecution – yet The Canary has shown this to be the case. That crucial information concerns the identity of two key witnesses listed in the superseding indictment: Sigurdur Thordarson (‘Siggi’) and Hector Xavier Monsegur (‘Sabu’). Not only did the DoJ fail to disclose the identities of those individuals, but also their criminal background, and their role as FBI informants in entrapment ops.

By not revealing that information, the DoJ has contravened UK legal practice in that both the court and the defence are fully entitled to its disclosure.

Contempt

Assange’s legal team has every right to demand that the UK court orders the superseding indictment and its press release to be withdrawn from circulation and that both be regarded as inadmissible. And now that it’s apparent that the DoJ has failed to lodge that document with the UK court and defence lawyers, the prosecution should be subject to sanctions.

Moreover, the non-disclosure of crucial information is itself such a serious violation of court procedure that if justice is to prevail then the entire case against Assange should be immediately dismissed. Indeed, there are already numerous alleged flaws and errors identified in the US case, as well as possible UK procedural irregularities, that such an outcome would be entirely justified.

Featured image via Flickr – Cancilliera del Ecuador

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