UK-US treaty bans extradition of Assange, lawyer says

By Michael Holden

 

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrives at the Westminster Magistrates Court, after he was arrested in London, Britain April 11, 2019. REUTERS/Hannah McKay/File Photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Lawyers for Julian Assange said on Thursday they will argue that the WikiLeaks founder cannot be sent from Britain to the United States to face spying charges because a treaty between the two countries bans extradition for political offences.

 

Assange, 48, faces 18 counts in the U.S. including conspiring to hack government computers and violating an espionage law. He could spend decades in prison if convicted.

 

At London's Westminster Magistrates' Court, his lawyer Edward Fitzgerald outlined some of the evidence Assange's team will put forward at the full extradition hearing due to start on Feb. 24, saying they could call up to 21 witnesses to testify.

 

"We say that there is in the treaty a ban on being extradited for a political offence and these offences as framed and in substance are political offences," he told the court.

 

Other arguments would feature medical evidence, public denunciations by leading U.S. political figures, and details from the case of Chelsea Manning, an ex-intelligence analyst who was convicted by a U.S. Army court-martial in 2013 of espionage and other offences for leaking secret cables to WikiLeaks.

 

There would also be information from an investigation led by a Spanish judge into "revelations about bugging of conversations with his lawyers" during Assange's long stay in the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

 

Assange, who appeared by videolink from prison on Thursday, is due to be interviewed by a Spanish judge when he appears in person at the same London court for a private hearing tomorrow over the allegations.

 

He spent almost seven years holed up in cramped rooms at the embassy where he fled in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden where he was then wanted for questioning over allegations of rape which were later dropped.

 

He was dragged from the embassy in April and jailed for 50 weeks for skipping bail before the U.S. launched its extradition request.

 

Due to the mass of evidence, the full hearing to decide the extradition issue is now set to last for up to four weeks, rather than one as originally planned, Judge Vanessa Baraister said, with Fitzgerald adding it involved "difficult, important and profound" matters.

 

Baraister also seemed unimpressed when Clair Dobbin, representing the U.S. authorities, asked for the case to be delayed until April, saying the lawyer earmarked for the case would not be available for the extended hearing.

 

"My impression was the (U.S.) government was anxious for this case to remain on track and not to be derailed," said Baraister, who said the next hearing would take place on Jan. 23 and the timetable would go ahead as planned.

 

(Editing by Stephen Addison)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-12-20

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

Good news, if Boris stands firm and doesn't trade him for a trade deal.

Donny and Rudi the clowns of justice lose again.

8 hours ago, webfact said:

WikiLeaks founder cannot be sent from Britain to the United States to face spying charges because a treaty between the two countries bans extradition for political offences.

I'm sure neither the US nor UK equate "political offenses" with spying.

As an australian who broke no australian law his govt should be putting much more effort into helping him.

 

Actually UK would probably be better served to deport him to oz and let them sort it out. Win win for boris and trade deal.

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

As an australian who broke no australian law his govt should be putting much more effort into helping him.

 

Actually UK would probably be better served to deport him to oz and let them sort it out. Win win for boris and trade deal.

Yes, but the Ozzie gvt is just as much a lackey of the US gvt as my/UK gvt.

 

And another thing, I might hint that JA ain't going anywhere until they hand over the US lady who ran the British guy down.

JA was reporting war crimes that otherwise would probably have been kept "secret". Also, telling us the truth about our leaders, in their own words, how venal, corrupt & duplicitous they are.

If he is an Australian citizen, let the Australians sort it out.

If he is a British citizen and committed offenses under British law, then the appropriate punishment should prevail.

Sending him to the US seems a bit OTT. 

Those who keep secrets shall keep secret that they keep secrets.

 

Humphrey Appleby.

I happy if Julian want to come live in Thailand.

 

We need someone to search and show the corruption. Good for Thailand.

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

As an australian who broke no australian law his govt should be putting much more effort into helping him.

 

Actually UK would probably be better served to deport him to oz and let them sort it out. Win win for boris and trade deal.

It would have been an offence had he hacked Australian computers.   One of the considerations for extradition in Australia at least, is "would it have been an offence if was committed (in the relevant state/territory."  

 

It it is not up to the government to pay legal bills for anyone.  Just because he got in to trouble in a foreign country does not mean they should pick up the tab.

32 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

If he is an Australian citizen, let the Australians sort it out.

If he is a British citizen and committed offenses under British law, then the appropriate punishment should prevail.

Sending him to the US seems a bit OTT. 

Why is consideration of an extradition request OTT?

Please don’t extradite me M’lud, my espionage and collaboration with Russia to interfere in the US election was of a political nature.

Was it political or journalism???

 

He is taking the <deleted> of the judicial system.

10 hours ago, Mick501 said:

It would have been an offence had he hacked Australian computers.   One of the considerations for extradition in Australia at least, is "would it have been an offence if was committed (in the relevant state/territory."  

 

It it is not up to the government to pay legal bills for anyone.  Just because he got in to trouble in a foreign country does not mean they should pick up the tab.

I never said the govt should pay his bills.

 

the oz govt already stated a few years ago that Assange broke no oz laws. Therefore they should be doing more to assist him.

 

btw, he didnt hack us computers either.

It seems justified when the US wont send a diplomats wife to the UK for killing a UK citizen, driving on the wrong side of the road, which is a crime. So only fair extraditing Assange is illegal.

 

It would seem the special relationship is a one way street with the US, on so many occasions.

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

It seems justified when the US wont send a diplomats wife to the UK for killing a UK citizen, driving on the wrong side of the road, which is a crime. So only fair extraditing Assange is illegal.

 

It would seem the special relationship is a one way street with the US, on so many occasions.

You’re spot on with your last sentence.

 

The ‘special relationship is, and has been for a long while, abusive in nature towards the UK.

Edited December 21, 20196 yr by Chomper Higgot

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You’re spot on with your last sentence.

 

The ‘special relationship is, and has been for a long while, abusive in nature towards the UK.

It's a lot more special for the Brits than it is for the USA, with America being the much bigger economy & power.

 

America has lots more things going on, including dealing with Germany.

 

In 2015 Germany came within a whisker of out-exporting the USA, with only a quarter of the population, partly helped by a massively undervalued (for Germany) Euro. I think if Germany had it's own currency it would be worth at least 50% more than the Euro, which is devalued by having many much poorer countries as users.

Edited December 21, 20196 yr by Andrew65