I have read part of the judgment (I think only part?) that he succeeded on - there would be a substantial risk he would commit suicide if extradited. And this was exacerbated by the likely 'special administrative measures' and possibility of being housed in a 'superman' prison
Similar to other extradition cases to US (involving terrorism), judge was concerned by the potential for Assange being held in oppressive conditions.
In this sense, argument that he would be treated with hostility worked in his favour even if didn't amount to improper pressure
Sorry *supermax not superman! Pesky autocorrect. Assume a superman prison would be made of kryptonite
Key paras - judge accepted the evidence of Assange's psychiatric expert and rejected the opposing expert evidence.
Ultimately, because there was a real risk of Mr Assange committing suicide in the harsh conditions he would be likely to be subject to in the US, the request was rejected. European Convention on Human Rights comes to the rescue, though not through the press freedom argument
Tough one for the US to overturn on appeal - though I assume the psychiatric evidence will be updated and some of the deficiencies could be address? Don't think it will just be a review as will need to consider the risk at the time of the appeal
Some wags pointing out that perhaps Trump thinks there is a Superman prison, I couldn't possibly comment
Good thing for Assange is unlike press freedom vs espionage arguments, 'risk of suicide' part of case doesn't rely on novel or controversial areas of law. Risk of suicide in extradition/deportation cases very well trammelled and relies on psychiatric expert evidence not much law
However, the US could feasibly give assurances that Assange will have access to particular conditions and psychiatric treatment in order to get over this hurdle. So watch this space
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Children's outdoor sports gatherings removed as a reasonable excuse - we knew that from the guidance
Parents and child groups no longer permitted
What is important really is how similar this is to Tier 4:
- No open air recreation
- No parents and child groups
- More limited informal childcare options (I think)
- No children's sport or other outdoor sport such as tennis)
But otherwise its very similar
These are not a new set of regulations: they are amendments an old set of regulations
Which we thought were gone! But they are back
Welcome back No.3 regulations
A quick thing before we continue!
I have been analysing these laws for free for 9 months now - if you want to say thanks and have a few £ to spare please give to my @LawCentres fundraiser
They give free legal advice to people who need it most
Support bubbles, childcare bubbles, exercise, meeting with one of the person not from your household for exercise still in place from Tier 4
This has all been done with such crashing urgency that they haven’t even been able to transpose the PDF version of the guidance into the website yet, it is here:
Looks pretty much the same as Tier 4:
- Can't leave home without a reasonable excuse
- Can take exercise with household/support+childcare bubble/1 other person (says once per day - don't expect this to be in the regulations but who knows)
Could be an excellent result for him as will be difficult to overturn on appeal. Is a relatively simple point based on expert psychiatric evidence (I assume, haven't read the judgment).
Whatever happens next - Tier 4+ or a new 'lockdown', it's important to understand that there is no magic to the term 'lockdown'.
It is better to see the laws we have been living under since March as different grades of legally enforced social distancing.
And whatever version of legally enforced social distancing the government goes for, ultimately it will stand or fall on: (1) Simplicity of rules (2) Clarity of communication (3) Level of actual and perceived enforcement
You can have stricter rules without any change to the above.
Despite it being relatively short on lawyers in top positions the government as become very legalistic - assuming that changing rules (even if that makes them immensely more complex and unclear) will change behaviour.