I’m at Woolwich Crown Court, where the extradition hearing for Julian Assange has just begun.
“This is an ordinary criminal charge,” the prosecutor says, as he outlines the charges against Assange in the United States.
The prosecutor outlines one set of charges covering “ordinary criminality,” and another set of charges concerning the dissemination of classified information.
He further asserts that the publication of unredacted documents put sources in Iraq and Afghanistan at mortal risk.
The prosecutor further asserts that “what Assange seeks to defend is not freedom of speech... it is the publication of the names of sources.”
Prosecutor is now reading from an opinion piece from The Guardian lambasting WikiLeaks for publishing the unredacted documents and thereby putting sources potentially at risk.
He continues by reading from another opinion piece in the New York Times from 2010, also criticizing WikiLeaks for publishing unredacted documents and thereby allegedly exposing sources.
A brief pause as a landline begins ringing in the courtroom.
The prosecutor denies that Assange is being charged in relation to the disclosure of documents alleging war crimes, says there’re 3 specific counts regarding dissemination of secret docs, all limited to disclosure of sources in Iraq & Afghanistan to “which there is obvious harm.”
The judge is now speaking about the noise from the protesters outside, saying that “any disturbance in the proceeding interferes with Mr. Assange’s case,” and asks if the word can be passed outside the courtroom.
The prosecutor again outlines his argument that the charges against Assange are not because “they embarrass the US government” but because he put at risk human sources in an active war zone.
Some of the observers in the overflow room are waving at and blowing kisses to Assange, who is in an enclosure at the back of the courtroom.
The Defense wishes to cast Assange as a champion of free speech, but the court must confine itself to looking at the charges of criminality against him, the prosecutor says, arguing that this alleged criminality must be judged in a US court.
Here is a portion of the handout provided by the prosecutor. 
The prosecutor is now outlining how it alleges Assange assisted Manning in getting classified documents to WikiLeaks.
The publication of Afghan and Iraq war logs by WikiLeaks created a “grave and imminent risk” to human sources, the prosecution once again alleges.
Prosecutor is now outlining the computer forensic details related to the alleged access of a classified computer database by Manning with, he asserts, the assistance of Assange.
Assange sought Iraq Rules of Engagement documents and Guantanamo Bay-related documents, and discussed methods for hiding Manning’s identity with the former soldier on Jaber, the prosection alleges.
Prosecutor is now citing intelligence recovered from the Osama bin Laden raid as showing that Al Qaeda was using WikiLeaks, asserting that it demonstrates enemies of the US were using WikiLeaks to harm the US and its allies.
Prosecutor is citing specific instances of sources named in documents released by WikiLeaks in Iraq and Iran who were “subject to retribution.”
Prosecutor names further instances of sources in Iraq, Iran and Syria.
He then says that regardless of whether individuals suffered harm, the US government went to extensive lengths to identify “at-risk” sources due to the WikiLeaks publication of unredacted documents.
He then says that regardless of whether individuals suffered harm, the US government went to extensive lengths to identify “at-risk” sources due to the WikiLeaks publication of unredacted documents.
Prosecutor then asserts the US is aware of specific individuals who “disappeared” after their names being made public by WikiLeaks’ publication of State Department cables.
Prosecutor now citing a NY Times article that covered how the Taliban was studying WikiLeaks documents to identify sources and “spies.”
We can continue to hear protesters chanting outside the court building.
There is another, longer document handed out by the prosecution detailing their case which I will post as soon as I am able.
I’m sorry I’m not a great law clerk, and my xeroxing skills leave something to be desired.
There is another document outlining the extradition case, which the CPS tells me they will provide as soon as they can make further copies.
We are in recess now.
The hearing now resumes. The prosecutor representing the US, John Lewis QC, begins by clarifying details of the forensic case against Assange.
“I apologise in advance for inundating you with paper,” prosecutor James Lewis tells magistrate Vanessa Baraitser.
“There is a statutory and mandatory approach to determining extradition,” Lewis tells the magistrate.
Everyone has large binders with multiple documents, and now the prosecutor and the magistrate are attempting to ensure they are, literally, on the same page.
Everyone has large binders with multiple documents, and now the prosecutor and the magistrate are attempting to ensure they are, literally, on the same page.
The hearing is now getting deep into the weeds of extradition law, in which the prosecution will attempt to establish that there has been sufficient evidence alleging Assange has committed a criminal offence to warrant his being sent for trial in the US.
“Madam, it appears to be the Defense wishes to use some of the evidence they have submitted as material upon which to test extradition law,” Lewis says. He then argues the court should look only at CPS request to determine whether there has been “abuse” of extradition process.
Ok, I’ve now been given a copy of the full skeleton argument from CPS. Bear with me.
Interrupting document posting...
Magistrate asks defense: Is there no contention the charges constitute an extraditable offense?
Defense: “We DO contend that.”
Magistrate asks defense: Is there no contention the charges constitute an extraditable offense?
Defense: “We DO contend that.”
Defense outlines argument that Assange was engaged in a journalistic endeavor.
The defense contends that this is not an extraditable offense based on “Article 10” grounds (of the UK’s Official Secrets Act).
The defense contends that this is not an extraditable offense based on “Article 10” grounds (of the UK’s Official Secrets Act).
One side note: the protesters have a very loud siren they are running continuously and it is extremely hard to hear the magistrate, the defense, or the prosecution, as none of them seem to really use the microphones they have in front of them.
To be clear, I mean the protesters outside the Woolwich Crown Court. I have seen no protesters inside the court building, which is obviously controlled access (although also open to the public based on a waiting list for available space).
The hearing remains bogged in a discussion about Article 10 and the various iterations and annexes of the Official Secrets act.
At question is whether Assange’s alleged actions communicating with Chelsea Manning would form the basis for a criminal charge under UK law.
At question is whether Assange’s alleged actions communicating with Chelsea Manning would form the basis for a criminal charge under UK law.
Assange is trying to speak
He says “This noise is not helpful. I understand your trying to help, but...”
The magistrate interrupts, advising him to speak through his attorney.
Assange’s attorney repeats that the protesters outside are not helping Assange; they’re making it hard for everyone to hear.
The magistrate interrupts, advising him to speak through his attorney.
Assange’s attorney repeats that the protesters outside are not helping Assange; they’re making it hard for everyone to hear.
To be clear with that last post, Assange was apparently trying to send a message to his supporters outside that the noise they are making is not helping him, as it is difficult for everyone inside the courtroom to clearly hear the case being made against him.
And of course I meant “you’re” argh my ocd is triggered
We are now taking another break for lunch. The hearing will resume at 1400 local.
The hearing now resumes; James Lewis representing the US argues that there is a material distinction between whether Article 10 is being raised as a bar to extradition, versus whether it applies to the charges Assange faces under the equivalence of the Official Secrets Act.
Undoubtedly there are lawyers who can explain that more clearly than I...
We are now hearing from Edward Fitzgerald QC, the attorney representing Assange.
Fitzgerald argues that the history of the case demonstrates that the prosecution is being conducted for political reasons.
Fitzgerald argues that this extradition is being sought under political motivation and therefore a breach Article 41 of the Anglo-US extradition treaty.
He further argues that extradition entails a real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment in the US.
Fitzgerald argues that there is also a high risk of suicide if Assange is extradited.
In essence, the Defense seeks to establish that this is a politically-motivated prosecution, and that therefore extradition would violate the US-UK extradition treaty.
Fitzgerald is outlining the specific materials Manning uploaded to WikiLeaks, including the dates of the uploads and of Manning’s arrest and court-martial.
Fitzgerald then points to testimony from Manning’s court-martial, as well as Obama’s commutation of Manning’s sentence, as evidence undermining the prosecution’s argument that lives were put at risk through the leaks provided to WikiLeaks.
Fitzgerald argues that it was the election of Trump, and his hostility to the press (he quotes Trump’s “enemy of the people” comments), that was the only thing that actually changed in relation to Assange’s case.
Fitzgerald cites experts saying that Trump’s efforts to punish whistleblowers and other leakers undermine the US First Amendment; further arguing that the prosecution of Assange is part of an effort to “make an example” of those who embarrass the US government.
Assange and WIkiLeaks’ role in disseminating information deleterious to US foreign policy “naturally made him a target” of those espousing “the America First” ideologies of Donald Trump, Fitzgerald argues.
Sidenote: Assange listens impassively in a gray suit. He is clean-shaven with a recent haircut, compared to some of his previous appearances. He looks somewhat healthier as he sits in a glass enclosure with his glasses perched on the crown of his head, security beside him.
“The decision to prosecute the publication of state secrets as espionage is unprecedented in the US,” Fitzgerald says.
“It’s not about criminal justice, it’s about the manipulation of the system to ensure the United States could make an example of Assange,” Fitzgerald says.
Fitzgerald then discusses allegations that the US “illegally surveilled” Assange and his “privileged legal conversations” while he was inside the Ecuadorean embassy.
First reference to Dana Rohrabacher. Fitzgerald says that in August 2017 Rohrabacher approached Assange and posited the possibility of a pre-emotive pardon in exchange for Assange’s helping Trump with the “Russia investigation.”
*pre-emptive
Rohrabacher and Charles Johnson attended a meeting with Assange at the Ecuadorean Embassy on behalf of President Trump, Fitzgerald says.
Rohrabacher told Assange that information about the source of the DNC leaks would be of interested to Mr. Trump, Fitzgerald says.
Rohrabacher also raised the spectre of prosecution by the US, then implying that a win-win was possible if Assange identified the source of the 2016 DNC leaks, after which Trump would pardon Assange, Fitzgerald says.
Fitzgerald notes that Trump denies all of this, adding “Well, as you might say — He would, wouldn’t he?”
Sidenote: I’m getting a lot of emails and DMs from members of the public. Some are like this.
Fitzgerald now wrapping up and reiterating his argument that extradition of Assange would violate the US-UK extradition treaty because it is a politically-motivated prosecution.
Fitzgerald is now also quoting NY Times articles as establishing that WIkiLeaks made substantial efforts to redact documents and protect sources.
“The facts have been presented in a misleading way,” Fitzgerald argues, adding that allegations of harm to sources is a complete Red Herring as established during Manning’s court martial.
Fitzgerald says he is now prepared to summarise the defense’s case.
Magistrate now tells both the defense and the prosecution she would like them to explain what, exactly, they would like her to rule upon this week, then calls for a short recess.
Magistrate now tells both the defense and the prosecution she would like them to explain what, exactly, they would like her to rule upon this week, then calls for a short recess.
Document outlining defence summary to follow:
We are back. Magistrate asks Assange’s attorney Fitzgerald if his client is likely to give testimony this week.
It’s very unlikely, Fitzgerald replies.
It’s very unlikely, Fitzgerald replies.
Fitzgerald claims Assange has published materials detrimental to Russia and the Assad regime; he also claims that WikiLeaks’ publishing of materials related to Tunisia “led to the Arab Spring itself.”
This is all part of Fitzgerald saying that Assange “has championed the cause of transparency” and has proven himself as a journalist, albeit a controversial one.
The conduct of senior US officials in commenting on the Assange case is completely contrary to established norms of law and governance, Fitzgerald says.
Fitzgerald now discussing Assange’s “deteriorated mental state,” and his history of clinical depression and risk of suicide, as being factors in why the defense argues he would be exposed to “inhuman treatment” if sent to a US prison.
Ok the hearing has adjourned for today, and will continue tomorrow. This will be a lengthy process as the attorneys representing the US and the attorneys representing Assange make their cases for and against extradition. There will not likely be a final decision until May.
Julian Assange’s father speaking to the press outside Woolwich Crown Court.
