Thread by @MaryKostakidis

The US High Court Extradition Appeal in London is scheduled to start in about an hour.
I’ll be monitoring on the videolink - along with other journalists - and will keep you posted on this thread.
#Assange

The 5 grounds on which the HC has agreed the US can appeal are:

1. That the Extradition judge applied S91 of the Act improperly ie that extradition would Not be Oppressive or Unjust

2. The Judge should have given the US the opportunity to offer assurances

3. The judge ought to have disqualified the key Defence psychiatric expert Prof M. Kopelman because he misled the court by not revealing the identity of JA’s partner in his first report.

4. The judge erred in assessing evidence of suicide risk

And 5. The US has offered the UK a package of assurances to address the judge’s reservations

What we don’t know is what impact new revelations will have on the case.
In the Extradition hearing the Prosecution dismissed suggestions JA faced a threat of assassination as “palpable nonsense”, despite the testimony of former UC Global Security employees.

But now, 30 former US officials, including former CIA officers have corroborated that testimony.
How will the High Court view this, and the admission by a key Prosecution witness that he lied - Thordarson is now in jail.

We are in Court

I can see other journo names on the link. The usual independent media, and some MSM.

After a bit of banter between journos (strictly verboten on previous occasions) we have gone to black. Court due to start at 10.30am.

45 on this link now, including Amnesty International’s Julia Hall

View of the room J will enter

Sound breaking up .. but there was a comment about J. I hope that he is on his way.

There are 17 waiting to get onto the link..

Split screen with one view toward the judges & a side view. Fitzgerald’s voice.
Bothe judges enter

J nor coming, higher dose of medication, Fitzgerald apologises

There is another court room with observers as well.

60 on this link now. Housekeeping: Prosecutor Lewis ruminating about Bundles & whether the judges have read the material.

This will go to 4.30. prosecution till 4, with half our for Defence, and the opposite tomorrow.

Prosecutor: The judge was wrong. Refers to 4 Grounds plus Assurances (5).
Rainforest of Bundles according to Lewis.

Lewis: this Court can send it back to the Judge to reassess following Assurances. This court should deal with the case substantively & refer the case to the Secretary of State.

On the Assurances: Note from US Embassy in Feb this year and 6th Declaration of Prosecutor Kromberg where he repeats the assurances.

Lewis on the Long history of cooperation between the US & UK.. this Diplomatic Note that makes the assurances; SAMs & ADX factors had a big impact on the judge.

Lewis: in the judge’s conclusion that the conditions under which JA will be held make the extradition oppressive because of his mental condition, conflates two sections of the Act.

S91 and Article 3.

Rather, s91 and the section relating to Article 3

Lewis is referring to pages in the Bundle describing ADX & SAMs.

Lewis referring to the Defence’s reliance on the Laurie Love case, ADX & SAMs.

Lewis referring to Kopelman’s comments on prison conditions with an emphasis on ADX & SAMs & Baird’s testimony on SAMs

Julian is there

He looked pretty terrible. Very brief shot.

This is a Battle of the Bundles. Lewis is going through what each side is stating but not yet inviting the Court to conclude much else other than at the beginning.

Lewis says all this testimony on SAMs is what the judge relied on.

Judge acknowledged JA has appeared.

Lewis : Her findings were based on the assumption J would be held in ADX under SAMs.

Julian is not physically there, he is on a link as we are, so we are unlikely to be seeing him much at all.

Lewis referring to Judge’s comments ‘these harsh conditions’ can only refer to ADX & SAMs. Once they are removed, along with the assurances of medical care & repatriation to Aus, she would not have made the decision she did.

I’ve asked to see more of the defendant & am told we will in the adjournment as it will be distracting otherwise to switch cameras for the judge.
Have to say this is the first hearing where the sound has not been a problem (so far!)

There are 76 on the videolink.

Lewis still on the Assurances & how they address all of the judge’s concerns.

Kromberg stating inmates can communicate through windows and doors & J can meet any time with his lawyers, pre trial.

Lewis on Kromberg: J would have a cell mate.

The Prosecutor has borrowed a document from Defence (quoting ‘the best laid plans of mice and men’) to give the Judge regarding Assurances.

Lewis on cases in the US that show inmates are treated quite differently eg one was seen by a private psychiatrist for assessment. Argues there is firm evidence & there has Never Been. previous Breach. This is not what was testified by Hamza’s lawyer in the Extradition hearing.

So Lewis is saying the US has never breached their assurances. I expect Fitzgerald will raise evidence to the contrary at the Extradition hearing.

Lewis on proviso of the Assurances, such as that J does not pass on information. Denying there was a breach in the case of Abu Hamza.

The assurance in that case - Abu Hamza - was that it would be Unlikely he would be housed at ADX, not that he would Not be.

Lewis on Article 3 (s87) & s91.
87 is so UK honours it’s obligation except where the respondent will be held in degrading and inhumane conditions (btw Hamza had no arms and a loo for people with at least one arm). It is a High Threshold argues Lewis.

Refers to another case - Ahmed - where it was found even with SAMs & ADX, there was no breach of Article 3.

So it is impossible for there to be a breach of Article 3 in this case argues Lewis.

s91: “is the mental or physical condition such that to extradite would be oppressive” focuses on the Present, on facts, not on risk for the future.

Lewis saying given the evidence regarding the 1st Amendment, he can apply for that to be heard in the US, the matter would be dealt with speedily and then the Conditions he would be held would be irrelevant.

Shot of J - he is talking. He is leaving.

We’re told by the Videolink Host he has left ‘for the time being’

Lewis discussing the importance of ‘Turner’ which differentiates between someone whose mental state results in an Inability to Resist an Impulse to commit suicide, to a Voluntary Act.

The District judge has used ‘such a low threshold’ argues Lewis. Referring to other cases where there were multiple suicide attempts & the defendant even had to be restrained before the handing down of the decision to prevent another suicide attempt. (!?)

Yahoo’s Isikoff also on the link.

Lewis says other cases he is referring to are in line with the Prosecution’s ‘Distillation’.
Now Lewis is onto Laurie Love: this was not a pure suicide case.. there was extreme vulnerability - severe Aspergers, asthma & eczema.. his physical and mental health at issue.

Argues Love should not be a precedent, the issue is ‘current’ condition, not a possible future risk. JA has no history of serious and ongoing mental illness and extradition is possible given his ‘current’ condition.. in fact he’d be better off in a US prison where the suicide

rate is lower than in UK prison. The judge’s interest was piqued. This was dealt with in the Extradition hearing. We shall wait for Fitzgerald’s responses to all this.

Lewis: the decision should not have been based on the Defence’s worse case scenario. Also apropos that JA would circumvent suicide prevention measures… there was no proper foundation for this. It will preclude extradition despite current condition not being an impediment…

It becomes a Trump Card, even though conditions may be a hundred times better than in UK jails, says Lewis

Lewis: It erects a new threshold. And his ability to circumvent measures contradicts the alleged severity of JA’s mental illness

Lewis: the judge’s decision rewards fugitives for their flight, you just cannot argue JA cannot he put on trial because he Might commit suicide… Only one psychiatrist said he is likely to commit suicide and only one said he has Aspergers.
Lunch break

Fitzgerald arguing with Lewis that he’s basically been disingenuous and then sound was cut.

We don’t know whether J returned to the videolink or not. We didn’t get another chance to see him anyway.

The two judges are Lord Chief Justice Burnett of Maldon and Lord Justice Holroyde. The Chief Justice also heard the Laurie Love case. No stones left unturned then, as long as they are identified.

We’re back.

Lewis: re why assurances were not provided to the Magistrate’s court. Assurances can be given at any stage, including on Appeal.

Lewis: the judge ought to have notified us of her provisional view. Final judgement should have been reserved until undertakings could be sought.

Lewis arguing their position was never he would be held under SAMs. It only became an issue because she based he decision on it. Our position was there was no risk of that but the Finding has precipitated the requirement for assurances.

Lewis saying had the judge notified the Prosecution, the assurances would have been before her.

Lewis wants to clear one more thing up: he would be held in ADC pre trail which has a stellar record; there is the prospect of acquittal; can’t know what the length of the sentence will be but is generally much less than the maximum.

Lewis: turning to Ground 3, that the judge was wrong to reply on Kopelman - either in admissibility or weight.

Lewis: Kopelman relied on JA’s own report whereas the Prosecution medical witnesses also relied on Prison medical notes. J can’t be relied on to be truthful esp given his interest in the British Medical journal., he has a lack of any formal psychiatric history & no autism diagnos

Lewis:Kopelman based his opinion on those close to JA. He knew of the relationship with Moris & the 2 young children. He mentions 3 children but he knew J had 5. Kopelman says obligation to his children prevents his suicide.
J is back

J is propping up his head in the palm of his hand.
Lewis on Kopelman not acknowledging he knew Stella’s identity.
J is struggling to keep his eyes open, blinking a lot, trying to concentrate.

J trying hard to prop his head up & keep his eyes open.

Lewis giving the timeframe of when Stella’s identity was revealed - in the bail application.
I can’t see how J can really be able to follow what is being said properly.
Lewis said the Prosecution realised his first report was misleading when Kopelman handed over his notes

Julian got up, picked up his papers and moved out of shot. Not out the door I can see, unless there is a second door. It could be that he just doesn’t want to be seen in this state.

So now we can see the courtroom again. Lewis going thru the various psychiatrists assessments and now on Blackwood who though JA had improved & his mental condition is not such that he would be unable to resist committing suicide.

Lewis on Blackwood’s assessment - has seen no evidence of suicide attempts while J has been in Belmarsh, didn’t regard him as being significantly autistic. Dr Daley who was the Belmarsh psychiatrist, diagnosed ‘moderate’ depression based on two interviews.

Lewis: JA did not report any psychotic symptoms to any of the Prosecution medical experts or the Belmarsh psychiatrist.

Lewis: high risk means elevated risk compared to other prisoners in his age group; comparing US statistics to UK where US comes out on top.

Lewis: on cross examination of Kopelman, he was asked to sort out a yardstick for diagnosis, he said he does it based on his clinical experience rather than any agreed diagnostic tools, was flawed on running off symptoms & had to look at a ‘book’ he refused to close.

Lewis: Kopelman couldn’t remember what an acronym stood for, didn’t have regard for the prison’s contemporaneous notes, saying he couldn’t include everything in his report.

Lewis: Kopelman was asked about JA reading the British Medical Journal & responded he also reads Nature; prison notes show a person who is lucid, asking about things he needs.. inconsistent with the mental condition described by Kopelman. Lewis listing the things Kopelman omitted

Lewis continuing to go thru Kopelman’s evidence in some detail in an attempt to discredit it. J asked for OJ & milk - inconsistent with someone who has psychotic symptoms.

Lewis: Prosecution medical witnesses Fazel and Blackwood relied heavily on contemporaneous notes by Prison medical team. Kopelman used self reported symptoms and no independent reports.
Now Lewis is on to failing to reveal Stella’s identity & that young children are a factor ..

… protecting against suicide.

“Maybe I did not perform my duty to the Court there” Lewis quoting Kopelman.

In Kopelman’s handwritten notes, Stella has told him she is not aware of any hallucinations. Lewis again asks why leave that out & accept JA’s self reporting.

Lewis referring to Nils Melzer alluding to the judge calling JA a narcissist in Kopelman’s report. (Lewis calls him Melcher).
Kopelman - despite not rely on Kromberg’s declaration at all - would not move away from the Defence position. He says Kopelman was not objective because

.. he didn’t give a definitive response to a hypothetical situation ie if he had a very short sentence & not held under extreme conditions.

Lewis raises the issue of Kopelman’s rare prison visits, & that he had no firm opinion on whether JA was autistic, didn’t know JA had ‘a TV chat show’, that the Prison notes described he had good eye contact & good insight.

Lewis trying to motor thru now, just giving judge line numbers that list evidence to support the Prosecution’s position, including that an AIS court gave him custody of his child which wouldn’t happen if he was Autistic.

Lewis on Prosecution medical witness Prof Fazel who said JA satisfies the Turner test; he didn’t think JA was severely depressed, the risk factors are modifiable & he has the capacity to resist the impulse.

Lewis: so how could the judge state ‘she prefers’ the evidence of one expert (Kopelman) over another without giving cogent reasons why.

Lewis has barely mentioned Defence medical expert Deeley who is regarded as an authority on Autism.
He only has 20 minutes left to get through the US Grounds.

Lewis says the judge simply preferred Dr Deeley’s assessment. Argues there was a great divergence of opinion & she doesn’t deal in any way with the weight that should have been attached to Kopelman misleading the court. Bloody hell, I can’t hear the judge clearly.

Please let me know if others have reported what the judge said here. It sounded like he agreed with Lewis.
We are back at Belmarsh, empty room no J.

Judge asks if Kopelman’s evidence should be inadmissible.
Lewis replied that well essentially we could have asked for that but we just said she gave it too much weight. It seems the judge is leaning towards ruling it should have been inadmissible..

Lewis saying the judge treated it as a minor matter, that the Supreme Court would not see it that way, quotes the obligation of experts witnesses & conduct that has bearing on their reliability… so it may go to admissibility.

Lewis on Ground 4: the judge should have weighed crucial factors so significantly differently that her overall decision would have been different. Lewis is quoting the Lord Chief Justice’s own words in the Love case. You cannot judge suicide risk on a long term basis.

Lewis: the appeal should be allowed because (handing out copies of the assurances) 1. They exclude the factors that the Defence depend on 2. In light of the assurances it can’t be oppressive 3. Judge was wrong to predict a deterioration in his mental health 4. She failed to

.. take into account relevant facts (that sentences tend to be short, the possibility of acquittal on 1st amendment).

Lewis: she should have weighed factors differently & was wrong to give so much weight to his evidence.

Fitzgerald: this was a carefully written & considered judgement & Lewis didn’t do it justice, she gave cogent reasons why she preferred Kopelman in he pr 4000 word judgement. Lewis is asking the impossible - she could not include everything.

Fitzgerald detailing the process of multiple hearings; Fazel didn’t dispute Kopelman on assessment of depression and he couldn’t dispute Deeley on the diagnoses of Autism because he is an authority.

Fitzgerald: judge made clear she understood the dilemma of a psychiatrist, that JA had told another doctor in March, that she knew by the time she heard the medical evidence. She made a judgement on his genuineness.

That he also recorded the days when J did Not report suicide ideation, that dr Blackwood got something wrong- he didn’t know JA was in the medical wing because he was a suicide risk. The Judge was fully justified is believing he was a despairing man who would be at risk of

.. suicide, in the conditions he would face from the minute he gets to the US. The criticism is just an attempt to re litigate. She gave 7 reasons why she reached this conclusion: risk off suicide would be high t(e minute extradition would be announced, his psychiatric

..condition, the conditions in ADC (segregation) even before ADX would be oppressive, he would became desperate, she took Fazel evidence into account - his evidence of increased risk under certain conditions and due to psychiatric condition, courts DO have to assess what will

.. in the future, under particular circumstance. The judge had regard for provisions that are there to protect mentally ill people from being extradited to oppressive situations that may result in their suicide.

Fitzgerald referring to JA’s reliance on calls to Samaritans, the razor blade incident, the fact that there are entries in the notes saying JA had days or instances of being jovial isn’t extraordinary. Argues that Lewis was misrepresenting the situation. Kopelman was not alone

..in his opinions, that the Prosecution expert witnesses agreed with him in numerous important ways. It’s not about inability to control impulse, he says, the Question is whether it is the result of a mental disorder.

(This is rather interesting isn’t it. If you make a rational decision to take your own life because of oppressive conditions, it’s .. ok. You have to have had a diagnosed mental illness for your suicide not to be alright. Surely anyone in that position would become depressed..)

Fitzgerald said her decision was only partly based on JA being held under SAMs., the assurances have come very late & should not be admitted in fairness to Mr Assange.
Court over for today.

I hope nothing was too mangled in the typing.
See you tomorrow.