Court hears U.S. pursuit of Julian Assange’s prosecution as ‘state retaliation’

The UK high court is considering Julian Assange’s last appeal against extradition to the U.S., which is being described as “state retaliation.” Assange is accused of conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information through WikiLeaks. Initially blocked due to suicide risk concerns by district judge Vanessa Baraitser in January 2021, U.S. authorities successfully appealed the decision later that year, advancing Assange’s extradition process.

Lawyers representing the 52-year-old are seeking permission to challenge the original judge’s dismissal of other aspects of his case to prevent extradition. Mark Summers KC argued during the first day of the hearing on Tuesday that the U.S. prosecution of Assange would amount to retaliation for his political views, making extradition unlawful under UK law. Summers stated that this situation represents a classic example of state retaliation for expressing political beliefs. He added that the district judge failed to address this issue, which, if considered, would have been detrimental to her decision.

In written submissions, Summers and Edward Fitzgerald KC, also representing Assange, asserted that the evidence indicated the US was willing to resort to any means, including misuse of its criminal justice system, to maintain impunity for US officials involved in torture and war crimes during the “war on terror” era, and to suppress those seeking to hold them accountable. Mr Summers later informed the High Court in London that U.S. authorities had devised a remarkable plan to potentially assassinate or abduct Assange during his time in the Ecuadorian embassy, where he spent around seven years. He went on to mention that the plan faltered when UK authorities showed reluctance toward the idea of rendition or a confrontation on the streets of London.

Mr Fitzgerald later argued that Assange, who was not present at Tuesday’s hearing, is facing prosecution for his involvement in what he described as standard journalistic practices. He explained to the court that Assange is being prosecuted for engaging in routine journalistic activities such as acquiring and publishing classified information, which is both accurate and of significant public interest.

The barrister further characterized the case as an unprecedented legal prosecution, expressing concerns that the 52-year-old could face a serious risk of experiencing a blatant miscarriage of justice if he were to be extradited. On the first day of the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, numerous journalists and members of the public were present, along with scores of Assange supporters gathering outside the central London courthouse from 8 am. US authorities are opposing Assange’s appeal, arguing that his case is “unarguable” and should not proceed to a full hearing.

James Lewis KC, representing the U.S., stated in written submissions that Assange’s actions are consistently misrepresented in the appeal. He emphasized the unprecedented amount of classified material provided to Assange and asserted that Assange’s actions threatened the strategic and national security interests of the United States, putting individuals’ safety at serious risk.

Mr Lewis, who is set to present oral arguments on behalf of the U.S. on Wednesday, reiterated that the original judge concluded Assange was not prosecuted for political reasons but for allegedly committing serious criminal offences. He defended the judge’s decision as unimpeachable, arguing that it is not credible for a journalist to be immune from criminal prosecution in such circumstances. The hearing presided over by Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson, is scheduled to conclude on Wednesday, with their decision on whether Assange can proceed with the appeal expected at a later date.