On March 26, the King’s Bench Division of the UK High Court, released its approved judgment in the extradition case of Julian Assange. It is a curious judgment because, rather than deciding the matter, it has prolonged the uncertainty surrounding Mr. Assange’s fate.
The WikiLeaks founder’s legal team had nine arguments about why his extradition should be prohibited.
However, the court failed to reach a conclusive decision, requesting further information from the respondents (the U.S. government, the UK Secretary of State for the Home Department), thereby merely delaying Mr. Assange’s extradition.
The ABC’s World News report characterised the decision as giving Mr. Assange “a glimmer of hope” in his fight to avoid extradition.
Mr. Assange’s wife, Stella—an astute lawyer and tenacious advocate for his release—angrily denounced the judgment.
For her, Mr. Assange is a political prisoner who has effectively been incarcerated for 12 years—five years in the Belmarsh prison and seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in self-imprisonment.
We now have a situation whereby the person who stole the documents (Bradley Manning, now Chelsea Manning) is free, but the publisher of WikiLeaks is still incarcerated.
Political Opinion vs. Political Offence
The Court, considering the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK Extradition Act 2003, decided that the respondents should provide more assurances, before April 16, that Mr. Assange would be treated well if he were to be extradited.If the assurances are given, Mr. Assange could be extradited to the United States, where an uncertain, challenging, and possibly even dangerous future awaits him.
It is perplexing that, at this stage, the court found it necessary to ask the United States for further assurances, considering that this extradition drama has been ongoing for many years.
But it is genuinely surprising that the court dismissed Mr. Assange’s claim that the respondents sought extradition for “a political offence,” considering that the UK-U.S. Extradition treaty prohibits extradition on this ground.
Mr. Assange’s legal team also argued that the extradition request was made to prosecute the applicant for his “political opinions,” which is prohibited by the 2003 Act.
However, the court found the prohibition on extradition in the treaty, was not incorporated into the 2003 Act, and therefore is not part of the UK’s domestic legal system.
Meanwhile, the court said there was insufficient evidence to prove that Mr. Assange was the subject of a politically motivated prosecution. It also found that the concepts of “political opinion” and “political offence,” while there is a degree of overlap, are separate.
Consistent with this reasoning, an example of this reasoning would be that commentary on the United States’ intervention in Iraq might be regarded as “political opinion,” but that the publication of sensitive documents, which might endanger the war effort, is an unprotected “political offence.”
This is an example of legalistic sophistry and jejune casuistry.
So is the publication of sensitive documents an example of the expression of a “political opinion”?
If so, the concepts of opinion and offence would overlap and the freedom of opinion provision in the 2003 Act would protect Mr. Assange’s actions.
The same result would also be obtained under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which extends its protection to “political offences” that communicate a message to the public.
Regardless, Enough Is Enough
On this view, Mr. Assange is a political prisoner, and extradition should be prohibited on the ground that the alleged political offences constituted the expression of political opinions.In any event, Mr. Assange has already been incarcerated for 12 years. The message, also increasingly mouthed by politicians, in Australia and abroad, is that enough is enough.
For example, David Cameron, the UK foreign secretary (and former prime minister) indicated during his recent visit to Australia that Mr. Assange has suffered enough, but also that judicial proceedings must run their course.
However, these proceedings have already taken far too long, and are an embarrassment to people of goodwill who expect a fair and speedy trial.
Mr. Assange should be allowed to return to Australia, on compassionate grounds, regardless of the legal nature of the serious allegations made against him.
The constant rejection of his legal team’s arguments and the procrastination involved in the extradition procedure do no longer serve the interests of justice.
