Following a negative #Covid result for a member of the legal team, #JulianAssange's extradition hearing resumes. We'll be live-tweeting from the court in about 5 hours on this thread.
Join us at 5pm BST on #CNLive! for Joe Lauria @unjoe's daily update.
We are in the courtroom. Judge enters. 19 present. @Assange not yet in dock. Half the people wearing masks. A statement about #Covid protection coming soon.
#JulianAssange has arrived. Mark Summers speaking. Hard to hear. Encourages the wearing of masks. Baraitser said it is not obligatory but people welcome to do so. Summers objects to having to go close to glass to speak to Assange. Baraitser instructs jailers to get Assange a mask
US lawyer Eric Lewis will be today's witness. It will take all day. He has not logged in yet...
We are still waiting for the witness Eric Lewis to log in. Judge says he has not responded to 2 links sent to him...
Eric Lewis has arrived. His voice is very muffled. Almost impossible to understand. Being sworn in now.
Edward Fitzgerald "settling in" the witness, verifying his credentials. He has made 5 statements for the court and stands by them.
Statement 1: History of this case. First indictments in relation to @xychelsea came in 2010 & 2011. #Assange not indicted until 2018.
"No publisher has ever been prosecuted for publishing information"
Cites "New York Times" problem (others besides Assange would be indictable)
Obama admin saw NYT problem & "all but concluded" not to prosecute #Assange. Matthew Miller (very close to AG Holder) made the statement abt not prosecuting #Assange.
EL: Mr Trump said JA should get death penalty
Candidate Trump praised @wikileaks @POTUS influenced by Pompeo
JL @jeffsessions called for arrest of #Assange in April 2017. Arrest & indictment followed in 2018, directed by Attorney General. New indictment made under new AG William Barr.
"This case being regarded as greatest espionage case in US history. Whole new approach to 1A."
Eric Lewis's voice is extremely garbled, boomy and with an echo. So hard to understand him without a headset.
EL Mr Kromberg knows what happened in 2013... Doesn't explain why evidence that was around for 5-6 years suddenly becomes the subject of an indictment.
US gov could have used only one count, excluding espionage.
Edward Fitzgerald: Will #Assange be incarcerated under Special Administrative Measures?
Eric Lewis: Most likely. #Assange has had access to large amounts of secret info. Court would fear he might reveal some of it.
EF: Would he be isolated?
EL: Yes, for a long time.
EF: Re ICC, you deal w/ their investigation into US war crimes. You say @Wikileaks docs would be essential for such an investigation? You speak of threats to ICC members from Trump, Pompeo & John Bolton?
EL: Yes
James Lewis will cross examine witness Eric Lewis.
JL: Are you retained by Mr #Assange as a lawyer?
EL: No, only as an expert witness & paid at rate of Legal Aid
JL: Are you being paid today
EL: Yes
JL: What is your duty
EL: My duty is to the court to give independent opinion
JL: Shouldn't you cite the point of view of the prosecution, Rule 19 4f?
EL: I tried to engage with all the evidence
JL: You have expressed a view in the media against the extradition of Mr Assange?
EL: Yes, before I became an expert witness, and those are still my views.
JL: Isn't there a conflict of interest?
EL: I I expressed my professional opinion.
JL: Shouldn't you have declared your interests?
EL: I've done what was asked of me
JL: You speak of prison conditions. Are you an expert in this area?
EL: I have experience...
JL: Qualifications?
EL: I've taught prison conditions. I haven't been a warden.
JL: Short answers please
Defence objects. Witness is stating his relevant knowledge
JL Do you know about the conditions in Alexander remand centre (where Assange would be held).
EL I spent a great deal of time there
JL Your client was acquitted of most charges, inc 4 murder charges?
EL Yes
JL wouldn't jurors for your client be from the same pool?
EL NO. They were from the District of Columbia, not EDVA
JL What did gov want
EL Life sentence. He got 22 years. It was harshly criticised
JL Would you call your client's trial a complete denial of justice?
EL No, but it was difficult.
JL Was he held under SAMS? Did that prevent you spending many hours w/ him?
EL it was very difficult but I did get to spend many hours w/ him. All of our meetings were recorded.
JL One of your clients was associated w/ the 9/11 attacks?
EL Yes
JL Prosecutors wanted death penalty but jurors refused.
EL I believe he's serving 20 yrs w/out parole.
JL Evokes Article 3 of European Convention of Human Rights...
JL Explain the conditions under which #Assange would be detailed.
EL NatSec inmates are placed in isolation.
JL How many categories of housing in the ADC?
EL Explains the various levels of segregation
JL Lists them
EL Agrees
JL You agree there is no solitary confinement?
EL No
EL Administrative segregation actually means solitary confinement. It would be 22 hours a day This causes people to deteriorate markedly
JL Was your client held in solitary?
EL (can't hear witness now)
JL Didn't he have the right to unlimited visits?
EL No. There were obstacles
JL You are saying #Assange will be held in solitary. Isn't it right that prisoners subjected to SAMS receive breaks?
EL My experience is that the break schedules require no one else around so breaks happen in the middle of the night.
JL will raise a point in EL's absence...
JL Madame Mr Lewis is giving very long answers. At this stage I will not get through all my questions today.
Baraitser: I asked you to estimate yr time. I have allocated what you asked for. It's not the court's obligation to limit the witness's time to answer yr questions.
Lewis & Baraitser are arguing about time limits for his X-examination. Lewis complaining about long rambling answers. Baraitser advises him to frame questions in a way to elicit short answers.
It's getting a bit testy between the two... Lewis doesn't want to be "guillotined"!
Baraitser tells Lewis he is not being guillotined, but asked for an estimate - and that is the end of the matter. Court adjourned for 10 minutes.
Court resumes.
James Lewis (prosecutor) apologises to judge for his outburst before the break.
JL reading SAMS conditions at Alexander Detention Centre.
EL If AG asks for SAMS under 501.2 #Assange would be detained thus.
JL Can SAMS inmates attend prison events.
EL If not SAMS
JL: None of the SAMS conditions apply to #Assange?
EL: Given the mental health issue & his notoriety, he would most likely
JL: You opinion is based on 1 client there?
EL: It is based on their stated conditions
JL: You said the regime is tantamount to solitary?
JL: Had you read the ECHR ruling on the case of Ahmed (?). I'm saying all the complaints you made are invalidated by ECHR.
EL is looking for something sent to him this morning.
JL: I'll take you through the case, re admissibility. The reason for the application was risk of SAMS
JL: discussing a SAMS case before the ECHR.
EL: SAMS creates a fairness disadvantage because it makes communications with the client so difficult.
JL: Are you saying Mr #Assange would be held under SAMS & in violation of his human rights?
EL: Yes
EL: Mr #Assange is particularly vulnerable if placed under SAMS.
JL: The court here take mental health issues into acc
EL: But it doesn't seem to think that is important or humane.
JL reads the US's criteria for SAMS. Seems it is done with reluctance
EL Disagrees, esp re #Assange
JL: ECHR rejected claims that SAMS violated Article 3.
EL: They did in 2008. If they re-considered today the decision might be different.
JL: What are the defence issues Mr #Assange will raise in his US trial
EL: I'm not his lawyer, but...
JL: You don't know.
JL: You don't know what the issues of Mr #Assange's defence will be so how can you say SAMS will impede it?
EL: I've read the indictment. It's complex.
James Lewis reading from ADX prison survey where #Assange would be held. "SAMS are rare".
JL mentions description of SAMS "fate worse than death".
EL: Yes that was the warden speaking
JL found claims re ADX were unfounded
EL: Yes, in 2005... (now indecipherable).
We can not understand much of what the witness is saying.
JL Would you accept that in 2012, in a very similar case to Mr #Assange's, the ECHR said conditions of SAMS were not sufficient to prevent extradition?
EL: Things have changed.
JL: You said Mr #Assange would not receive adequate mental health treatment. Are you a medical or mental health professional.
EL: I relied on the report from the bureau of prisons... self abuse is up 18%
JL: Have you read their report about mental health treatment of inmates?
EL: You can refer me to all the reports the Bureau of Prisons issue. I can tell you how things actually happen. You didn't give me a copy of the document you're talking about.
Baraitser: You don't need to have a copy of the document.
JL: Can you list 8 recent changes?
EL: No
JL: Are you really an expert?
EL: I'm a practitioner within the context of confinement.
JL: Just want to check how much detail you are aware of re mental health conditions
EL: I can tell you there is one mental health professional for every 500 inmates
Can't hear EL. Bad echo
Someone's voice has invaded the #Assange court room. Now another voice. Everyone on their feet. Baraitser has fled.
More detail on the interruption of the #Assange proceedings.
Everyone is back in court except Baraitser. Edward Fitzgerald asks "What's going on?".
Off-camera speaker: "We don't know whether that [pre-lunch interruption] was coming from Eric lewis's computer or if someone hacked into our system".
Witness Eric Lewis is back. He now sounds like a Dalek!
Cccaaann yyyooou heeaarr meee nnnow? he says.
For the last 5 minutes the witness has been asking if anyone can hear him. No one is answering him. People chatting & laughing in the courtroom. Eric Lewis continues to say: "Hello, hello. Can you hear me?"
Audio problems still not resolved. The witness Eric Lewis can not be heard in the #Assange courtroom. We are now back with the video link host. Now screen is all black, and silent.
Court is still having sound issues. We'll be reconnected as soon as possible...
Court came back online for a brief moment, just to tell us That's All Folks... End of session
Court resumes at 10am tomorrow
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We are in the Supreme Court in Canberra, Australia, waiting for David McBride @MurdochCadell's appeal to begin. Our live updates will be on this thread.
McBride's appeal will be in front of a full bench of three female judges: Justice Baker, Justice Taylor and Justice Abraham. Senior counsel for McBride is Bill Neild. Junior counsel Kieran Ginges. His solicitor is Edwina Lloyd @worldzonfire.
@worldzonfire We have been informed that proceedings will be late in starting because @MurdochCadell was still at the prison. No reason was given why he was not already in court.
Day Two of the closing arguments for Antoinette Lattouf v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation will begin at 9.45am AEDT / 5.45pm EST today. We will be providing live updates on this thread.
Proceedings may be viewed on this link for the duration of today's session.
We heard from Lattouf's lawyers yesterday. Today will be the closing arguments for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Justice Darryl Rangiah presides, and Ian Neil SC (IN) will speak for the ABC.
Court in session. Lattouf lawyer Oshie Fagir (OF) tenders 3 documents. Number one is a medical opinion concerning the definition of disability, saying there is no difference between the underlying condition and its manifestation. Other documents concern the testimony of the decision-makers and their reasons for the actions they took.
Day One of the closing arguments for Antoinette Lattouf v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation will begin at 10.15am AEDT / 6.15pm EST today. We will be providing live updates on this thread.
Proceedings may be viewed on this link for the duration of today's session.
Our reporting on days one to seven of witness testimonies of Lattouf v. ABC are on these threads.
Last day of witness testimony for Lattouf v. ABC will begin in about 30 minutes. Live updates will be on this thread and the proceedings will be live-streamed from the Federal Court of Australia on this link:
Yesterday ended with the former ABC Chair Ita Buttrose claiming she had nothing to do with @antoinette_news' sacking, despite evidence of a number of emails she sent to subordinates that appeared to apply pressure for this outcome.
She stated in court: "I'm not happy and I wasn't happy. I didn't wish her to be removed. I didn't put pressure on anybody. It's a fantasy of your own imagination. I have nothing to do with her dismissal".
Court in session.
Judge: A media organisation has published information that was subject to a suppression order. I ask that this organisation consider their position & avoid further action.
Announcement of document that has arrived.
Next witness with be Elizabeth Green (direct manager of Lattouf). There is an objection to a part of her affidavit, starting with "this is because...". Judge reads & Lattouf lawyer objects on relevance. What is revenant is what she said or intended to say in a meeting.
Judge: Isn't that favourable for you
LL: Potentially but what is relevant is what preceded her characterisation of what she said.
Judge: I will provisionally let that evidence be led & we can deal with the matter in closing submissions.
Green takes the stand. Confirms her name & position as producer of Sydney 'Drive' show.
LL refers Green to her affidavit.
EG: It's details of a Teams meeting + screenshot I took.
Barrister Philip Boncardo for Lattouf: Did you see complaints about AL?
EG: Yes
PB: Were you told they were from lobby groups?
EG: No, not that I recall.
PB: Re conversations with Ahern. he asked you to look at AL's post. Did you know they about Israel-Palestine?
EG: Yes
PB asks about specifics of what EG said to Lattouf about social media posting & about communication to Ms McBean, legal council.
EG: I said she should be mindful, avoid posting anything about Israel-Palestine.
PB: AL had asked if she had done anything wrong
EG: I told her she was doing a good job, but keep a low profile on social media.
PB: Did you tell Lattouf she should not post anything that might appear unbalanced or not impartial.
EG: Yes
PB: Nothing about Israel-Palestine?
EG: yes I believe so
PB: You said it was OK to post anything factual and from a verified organisation?
EG: Yes
PB: Nothing controversial?
EG: Yes
PB: You got an email from AL outlining what was OK to post & you forwarded this to Ahern. And you both OKd this?
EG: Yes
PB: You gave Lattouf good feedback on her show?
EG: Yes
PB: You were copied in on an email sent by Ahern detailing why AL was on the show.
EG: Yes
PB: When you learned of an intention to dismiss AL you raised an objection that there was nothing wrong with her post?
EG: yes
PB: You were at the dismissal meeting with Ahern & Lattouf where it was explained she had breached the social media policy. Did AL say she had discussed what was OK with you?
EG: Yes
PB: Al was crying & you spent time with here. You said you were sorry & had tried to stop this, but it was coming from higher up?
EG: yes
PB: AL asked if it was about the @hrw post & you said it was about it not being balanced.
EG: Yes
PB: And she said: "How can you balance starvation (as a 'weapon of war')?
EG: I don't recall that.
PB: You said you would love AL to work at the ABC again.
EG: Yes
PB: You made notes, saying you had heard the decision came from Mr Anderson. Heard from whom?
Lattouf v. ABC will resume in the Federal Court of Australia in about 20 minutes time & we'll hear from five witnesses over the two days. Updates are on this thread & the proceedings can be viewed on this link.
@antoinette_news Day Six of Lattouf v. ABC in session. Judge makes announcement about violations of the confidentiality of complainants' names & addresses - and the uploading of unredacted material to the publicly available online files. ABC lawyer apologises for the human error.
@antoinette_news Today we will hear from Ahern, Buttrose & Green. Statement from ABC: does not deny the existence of the Lebanese race or ethnic extraction & that Ms Lattouf is Lebanese. Does deny this has anything to do with her dismissal.
Our DAY FIVE reporting on the Lattouf v. ABC case will be on this thread and starting at 9.30am AEDT, the proceedings can be viewed via this link ⬇️
We arrived at a point yesterday where David Anderson, the Managing Director of the ABC (Australia's national broadcaster) testified that @antoinette_news' mention of "Illegally occupied territories" of #Gaza could be interpreted as anti-semitic hate speech.
The Australian journalists' union @withMEAA has since issued a statement about outside interference that may have influenced such views within the ABC.
Court in session. Calling Christopher Nicolas Oliver-Taylor (O-T), Chief Content Officer (COT) for ABC.
Changes since affidavit - resigned from ABC.
Screenshot shown from Teams meeting
Oshie Fagir: You took a religious oath
O-T: Yes, I'm Catholic
OF: Do you know what a managed exit is?
O-T: No
OF: Do you use Signal & did you communicate about Ms Lattouf over Signal
O-T: Yes & yes, with Mr Latimer
OF reads O-T's job description - ensures compliance for editorial policies (EdPols) - - formerly over 1K people
OF - Do you understand EdPols govern on air content, and then there are Guidelines for personal use of social media & ABC distinguishes the two?
O-T Yes, but it depends on the circumstances?
OF- So personal social media activity is not ABC content & not subject to EdPols. Agree?
O-T Yes, but impartiality can come into play
OF: You were also bound by EdPols?
O-T: Yes
OF draws O-T's attention to the subject of misconduct = where employee disobeys a reasonable and lawful direction.
OF You understand the difference between direction, request and suggestion?
O-T: Yes
OF: The way Ms Lattouf (AL) was dealt with was highly abnormal. Agree?
O-T: No
OF: Ms Green was AL's line manager. Wasn't it unusual for you & ABC's MD to be involved in scrutinising the conduct of a 5-day casual employee? You disagreed.
O-T: Nods
OF: Social media misconduct should have nothing to do with EdPols or the COT, but be managed by line manager.
O-T: Not unless the MD refers it to COT. It was managed by line manager but others involved to.
OF: When did you consult with people in Culture?
O-T: I did not
OF: You understood that Lattouf was not a high profile personality?
O-T: Yes
OF: You were aware of her race & national extraction?
O-T: No
OF: You see this email you wrote, where you say she is a Lebanese Christian?
O-T: I copy/pasted this content from Mr Ahern...
OF: Of course you knew. Were you confused by this? You understand that there is a race called Lebanese Christian?
ABC lawyer: Objection
Judge asks O-T to leave the room
OF reminds judge that Fair Work Act permits use of race as a national or ethnic category
OF to O-T: You understand Lattouf was Lebanese?
O-T: I wasn't really aware of all the content of my email send to MD Anderson.
OF: You just copy/paste content to email and send?
O-T: In some cases. The criteria. for Lattouf's selection were put together by someone else.
OF: You understood Lattouf's position on the Israel-Gaza war before she was hired?
O-T: More as the week continued. I don't know if I understood her position but I knew there were published comments relating to question of partiality as a host of a live radio show.
OF: You understood when you caused her to be removed from the air that Lattouf held a view that media orgs should report ethically on Israel-Palestine?
O-T: I didn't know she held that view
OF refers to O-T sent to Ahern & Latimer, questioning her suitability for the job because of her position on Israel-Palestine & because she signed a petition.
OF: You knew her political stance when you fired her, that she was critical of the State of Israel?
O-T: No
OF: You knew she had signed a petition calling for ethical reporting on the war?
O-T: It wasn't about that, She wasn't supposed to post anything during her period of employment
OF: He dismissal was precipitated by a social media post? When did you become aware of that?
O-T: Yes. during a Teams meeting,. It was a slide shared by Mr Latimer
OF: You gave evidence at the Fair Work Commission that you had never seen that post. O-T says his memory is not clear.
OF moves on to the week of Lattouf's dismissal. O-T says he was looking at ways she could be kept on air.
OF refers to correspondence about Lattouf. There is no indication here that you saw her posts relating to diversity of voices and Israel's use of starvation as a weapon of war. Correct?
O-T: I can't recall. I believe I was told by Mr Latimer
OF reads from O-T affidavit, questions the use of language defining partiality. Asks if those are lawyer's words or his.
O-T: I don't know how to answer that
OF : You understand there is an obligation for ABC employees to be impartial. On what issues?
O-T: That's a broad question but if you're a live radio host you should be impartial, there are some topics where it becomes difficult to hold personal view.
OF: The obligation applies at all times or only at work
O-T: It depends on the circumstances
OF: And if you are radio host, it applies to all subject matter? Did you understand that when Lattouf was employed by ABC she should be impartial on all subject matter at all times?
O-T: No? (O-T speaking very quietly)
OF: Lattouf was hosting the 'Mornings' show and it was a (politically) light show. That her work was not related to the Israel-Gaza war?
O-T: Yes, but there were news breaks & that was the hottest news story at the time.
OF: You wrote "her work is not related to the Israel-Gaza war. You knew the content of 'Mornings' was significantly watered down coming up to Christmas.
OF: You knew Lattouf did not present the news. That was a completely different person & different department. Correct?
O-T: Yes
OF: Was Lattouf sacked for breaching a direction?
O-T: Yes, and was not impartial - and this could have affected perception of her impartiality on air.
OF: Who gave the direction not to pst on social media
O-T: I believe it was Mr Ahern
OF: Because she was known to have certain opinions about the Israel-Gaza War?
O-T: I was told that
OF: What was her view?
O-T: I'm not sure
OF: You took a decision without knowing anything about her views?
O-T: I'm not an expert on the issues. I was told there was a problem related to impartiality.
OF: You knew complaints were made by a pro-Israel lobby?
O-T: I knew there had been a number of complaints. I don't believe I knew it was a lobby. It was by people who held a different view to Ms Lattouf. That was clear.
OF: You understood that the complaints were about her position on the Israel-Gaza war.
O-T: Yes
OF: You have been instructed not to acknowledge Ms Lattouf's position & just use the catch-phrase "impartiality", right?
O-T: I don't agree with that statement.
OF On Dec 18, did you know who Lattouf was?
O-T: I don't think so
OF: Did Anderson know her?
O-T: I don't know sir
OF: You knew complaints were about her position on the war?
O-T: Yes, Mr Anderson told me
OF: And you told Mr Ahern to seek advice Latimer & Saska?
O-T: Yes they were the experts on subject matter
OF: On what basis has the ABC authority to forbid Lattouf from expressing her views?
O-T: Our concern about impartiality
OF You note Latimer's advice that the ABC could not expect a casual presenter's view to be consistent with ABC policy at all times? You agree with that?
O-T: Yes
OF: And you note Melkman's comments about her Crikey article, that it was clearly journalistic work?
OF: Yes
O-T: You agreed with Melkman's view (as acting editorial director)?
O-T: Yes
OF You then get an email from Ahern & see mention of Lattouf's views on the Israel-Gaza war. Did you read it?
O-T: Briefly
OF: You had a lot of emails about this. Was it a priority issue?
O-T: Yes but it wasn't about something I knew much about.
OF: Your affidavit speaks of what was in your mind the week of the dismissal.
O-T: There were lots of things going on. I was running 9 radio stations & 4 RV channels
OF: But there's a lot about this matter in you affidavit.
O-T: I remember different things at different times.
OF: You have no reason to doubt what was in Ahern's email? Your view when you wrote to the MD was that Lattouf had expressed views that would be problematic?
O-T: During her period of employment
OF You understood there would be no coverage of Israel-Gaza that week?
O-T: Yes
OF: Did you think AL's signing a petition was relevant?
O-T: No but others were concerned
OF: You recall a series of texts the MD sent you that evening of Dec 18?
O-T: Yes
OF, referring to the one saying MD thought "we have an Antoinette problem. Her socials are full of anti-semitic hatred" and doubting ABC could have someone like that on air. Did you think he was right?
O-T: I did know much about the issue. I was concerned that she was on live radio.
OF: You had no idea what she was posting?
O-T: I agreed with Anderson that we had a problem because she was live.
OF: You were sent a screenshot about Crikey reporting by Lattouf & Cameron Wilson. What's problematic about her contributing to a Crikey article?
O-T: My concern was that she was live.
OF: ABC journalists publish articles every day where they express their opinions. Should this disqualify them from working at the ABC.
O-T: I'm not a journalist. When an MD uses words like "ant-semitic hatred" I become concerned.
OF: Didn't you say you didn't know anything about Lattouf's views, but were aware on the evening of Dec 18 that she was critical of the State of Israel?
O-T: MD told me that and supplied a screenshot.
Judge asks O-T to leave court. Discussion about line of questioning. OF says O-T was a decision-maker. The allegation was that Lattouf was sacked because of her political views. He wants to educe evidence that O-T was ate of those views. Judge suggests he take question in two steps. O-T returns.