Julian Assange extradition rulings could be annulled, say legal sources

Assange and Patel
Support us and go ad-free

UK home office minister Priti Patel is expected to rule any day on whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be extradited to the US to face espionage related charges. But legal sources now say that surveillance of Assange’s lawyers may see the extradition case thrown out.

Meanwhile, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the UK government illegally spied on one of Assange’s lawyers.

Extradition case in doubt

The Canary has previously listed a number of defence concerns that could be raised in court. These include Spain-based firm UC Global’s surveillance of Assange’s lawyers in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

The Canary reported that meetings between Assange and some of his lawyers – including Melinda Taylor, Jennifer Robinson, and Baltasar Garzón – were monitored. Surveillance also included the logging of visitors such as Gareth Peirce – another of Assange’s lawyers – as well as a seven-hour session between Assange and his legal team on 19 June 2016.

This video includes examples of surveillance undertaken:

Robinson subsequently commented that the surveillance was “a huge and a serious breach of [Assange’s] right to a defence and a serious breach of [Assange’s] fair trial rights”. Indeed, client-lawyer confidentiality remains a cornerstone of the English legal system.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

In this respect, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson commented:

The case should be thrown out immediately. Not only is it illegal on the face of the [extradition] treaty, the U.S. has conducted illegal operations against Assange and his lawyers, which are the subject of a major investigation in Spain.

Evidence was presented in a Spanish court at the trial of David Morales, UC Global CEO, that surveillance which UC Global gathered was allegedly provided to a contact with links to US intelligence.

The Canary also reported that during the extradition proceedings in London, the defence referred to “Witness #2”, a whistleblower who worked for UC Global. And according to Shadowproof, Witness #2 revealed that:

data was collected and uploaded daily to a remote server. That information was accessed by U.S. intelligence. Original recordings, including sound, were collected from several microphones every 14 days.

The Council of Bar and Law Societies of Europe, representing over one million lawyers, has issued a letter to UK home secretary Priti Patel. The Council points out that the surveillance on Assange and his visitors equated to a serious breach of client-lawyer confidentiality, as well as other concerns:

Indeed, the law in England on client-lawyer confidentiality is clear, as indicated by this 2018 judgement in the Court of Appeal.


Now legal sources have told El Pais that the surveillance UC Global undertook may lead to the extradition against Assange being annulled. The newspaper reports that:

Proving that US intelligence services learned about Assange’s defense strategy by spying on his lawyers could annul the extradition by questioning the illegal methods used by the US to get Assange tried there, according to legal sources.

El Pais adds:

It could be argued that the [extradition] process was flawed because the right of defense was violated by the country requesting the extradition.

In 2020 the Spanish judge requested the opportunity to interview Assange via video conference, but UK authorities haven’t cooperated. Indeed, it’s claimed that those authorities have actively blocked this request.

Meanwhile, the UK government has admitted liability for illegal surveillance conducted on Assange’s lawyer, Jennifer Robinson:

The European Court of Human Rights’ ruling in Robinson’s case is significant and could provide further argument that the extradition case against Assange be annulled.

Security organisation backs Assange

On 7 June, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) published a press release regarding Assange. It quoted OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Teresa Ribeiro, saying:

I call on the UK Home Secretary Priti Patel not to extradite Julian Assange. The public interest of several of the publications by WikiLeaks should be taken into account, as it contributed to important investigative reports and news reporting. It is essential to consider the impact on freedom of expression and media freedom if he is extradited and convicted. The fact that someone who disclosed material of public interest might face a long prison sentence could have a grave and lasting stifling impact on investigative journalism.

The OSCE includes 57 participating states, covering North America, Europe, and Asia.

Back in May, the Council of Europe commissioner for human rights Dunja Mijatović requested Patel not to proceed with Assange’s extradition. In a letter to Patel, Mijatović stated:

it is my view that the indictment by the United States against Mr Assange raises important questions about the protection of those that publish classified information in the public interest, including information that exposes human rights violations.

A bill introduced by Patel, if enacted, has the potential to criminalise the kind of activities Mijatović referred to in her letter. That bill would make it difficult, if not impossible, for a WikiLeaks type organisation to publish documents considered by UK authorities to ‘benefit’ foreign powers.

Pressure increases in Australia

Meanwhile in Australia, pressure is increasing on newly-elected Labor prime minister Anthony Albanese to act on earlier statements that Assange should be freed. For example, in December 2021 Albanese stated:

I’ve said for some time that enough is enough … He has paid a big price for the publication of that information already and I do not see what purpose is served by the ongoing pursuit of Mr Assange.

In an interview on Australia’s 60 Minutes programme, Federal independent MP Andrew Wilkie made it clear why he supports Assange:

Wilkie commented:

this is about an Australian journalist publicising hard evidence of US war crimes’ of the US being deeply embarrassed and wanting to get even, and the Australian government happy to go along with the ride because they believe their relationship with Washington is more important than the welfare of Australian citizens and the fundamental right of Australian citizens to justice.

Julian Hill, an Australian Federal Labor MP, made his position clear too:

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

The continued prosecution of Mr Assange is an affront to the vast majority of Australians. Australians clearly want a government that will stand up for journalistic freedom, for whistleblowers, and the human rights of all Australians such as Mr Assange.

The former government’s claim that Australia is not a party to his extradition is no longer an acceptable excuse for inaction. We are confident that the new government understands all the concerns we are raising. Whether it be the legal precedent set by extradition, or the extreme time Julian has spent in maximum security without conviction, we are hopeful of swift action soon.

What next?

According to Assange Defense, Assange’s lawyers have submitted an application to:

appeal the extradition order to the High Court again, this time on the other substantive issues from the original Magistrates’ ruling that were not discussed at the previous appeal. These issues include a politicized prosecution, the threat the charges pose to the First Amendment, and the likelihood Assange would face a fair trial in the Eastern District of Virginia.

With interventions from Ribeiro and Mijatović, and the Council of Bar and Law Societies of Europe, the pressure on Patel to release Assange is growing. And in Australia, prime minister Albanese should now prove his integrity and add his intervention too. But if all else fails, Assange’s lawyers can always consider taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Meanwhile even if Patel recommends that extradition proceeds, the rulings in the extradition case could be annulled based on the latest evidence from the Spanish courts.

Featured image via Wikimedia Open Government Licence version 1.0 / Cancillería del Ecuador cropped 770×403 pixels

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. This government, and Priti Patel in particular, has no interest in justice or the rule of law. Sadly, she will proceed regardless because that is the nature of the beast. Even more sadly, the vast majority of the citizenry will not give a toss.

    2. I have had a suspicion for some time that the UK government (not famous for altruism) would not be averse to finding some way out of their embarrassing position on Assange. While anxious as always to be seen to do the bidding of the US, they will not enjoy the censure of more enlightened countries. We can only hope that they will see the illegality of covert surveillance and the intervention by Australia as an “excuse” to rid themselves of the burden of Assange without offending their US masters.

    3. To all at the Canary, I see that I am described as”Rowypest” this does not make sense. I may have misspelled the user name in my initial application but do not know how to change it. I should be designated as “Rowdypest” as friends assure me that I am both a rowdy and a pest.
      Can you change this for me or tell me how to do it?

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.