Wikileaks: US begins legal appeal to extradite Assange
Lawyers for the US have told the High Court the judge who blocked Julian Assange’s extradition was misled by his psychiatrist.
The United States government is starting a legal appeal to try to get the Wikileaks founder extradited.
In January, a court ruled Mr Assange could not be extradited to the US due to concerns over his mental health.
Mr Assange is wanted over the publication of thousands of classified documents in 2010 and 2011.
The US says the leaks broke the law and endangered lives but Mr Assange says the case is politically motivated.
In January, the district judge overseeing the US’s extradition appeal, Vanessa Baraitser, said Mr Assange publishing the classified military and government documents arguably amounted to a crime. But he could not be transferred to the US because he was unwell and could take his own life.
On Wednesday, James Lewis QC, representing the US, told the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Holroyde that conclusion was wrong.
He said Mr Assange’s psychiatrist had misled the earlier judge and the US had also not been given an opportunity to answer her concerns.
Mr Assange, 50, is wanted in the US on allegations of a conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information following WikiLeaks’ publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
The publications include the release in April 2010 of footage showing US soldiers shooting dead civilians from a helicopter in Iraq.
Mr Assange has been in Belmarsh Prison since 2019, when he was carried out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London by police and arrested for breaching his bail conditions.
He had been in the embassy since 2012, avoiding extradition to Sweden, where he faced sex offence allegations. He has always denied those and they were eventually dropped.
On Wednesday morning, Mr Assange’s legal team initially told judges he would not attend because he was not well. He later attended via a video link from prison.
US lawyers said it had now given four binding assurances as to how Mr Assange would be treated:
- It would not impose a highly restrictive form of solitary confinement on Mr Assange before or after trial – although it could do so if he committed a further offence
- Mr Assange could apply to serve a sentence in Australia and the US would agree to that transfer
- Prison authorities would ensure Mr Assange would receive “any clinical and psychological treatment” that prison doctors recommended
- Mr Assange would also not be sent to ADX Florence, a US “supermax” prison, reserved for the worst offenders.
Mr Lewis said: “The assurances are clearing binding on the United States.”
He said the previous judge’s approach “carries with it the risk of rewarding fugitives for their flight, and of creating an anomaly between the approach of the courts in domestic criminal proceedings, and in extradition.”
Mr Lewis said that Mr Assange’s psychiatrist, Professor Michael Kopelman, had misled the court about Mr Assange’s psychiatric state.
He did not disclose the nature of the relationship Mr Assange had with his partner Stella Morris, or that the two children were Mr Assange’s.
Mr Lewis called Professor Seena Fazel from the University of Oxford, who said he did not share the defence’s view that Mr Assange would certainly take his own life in the US.
Mr Assange’s QC Edward Fitzgerald said it was oppressive to extradite someone who was mentally disordered and his extradition would likely result in his death.
He said that in January, the judge relied on the fact Mr Assange would be isolated and deprived of the protections he had in Belmarsh. And the US’s assurances then did not stop the risk of him being detained in special measures.
Australia has not said it would have him if he were convicted, he added.
Supporters, family members and friends of Mr Assange outside court expressed their “outrage” after he did not attend his hearing in person.
They said they were concerned he was thin, he was not there to instruct his lawyers or clarify what was going on in court.
The High Court hearing is expected to end on Thursday with a decision at a later date.