Thread by @DefenseAssange

Julian Assange's Extradition Appeal Hearing Coverage

Court has begun. Julian Assange doesn’t feel well and won’t be appearing by video link today. #FreeAssange

James Lewis QC discussing housekeeping items with the 2-judge panel, dividing argument time between the defense today and tomorrow.

Lewis outlining the US govt's lines of argument, including "assurances" that Assange won't be held in the most extreme & isolating prison conditions in the U.S. See more on the US's arguments here assangedefense.org/hearing-covera…

& on the "assurances" here assangedefense.org/hearing-covera…

Lewis is starting with argument over 'assurances', and will refer to sections 106 and 91 of the UK Extradition Act (106, on appeal rules: legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/…, and 91 on Physical & Mental Condition: legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/…)

Lewis: the defense argues that the US's assurances can't be trusted, but these are binding on the US

Lewis arguing that the defense’s objections regarding prison conditions are not about “the US prison system in the abstract” but are restricted to ADX Florence and SAMs, as well as pre-trial solitary confinement

Note on the US's "assurances" that Assange won't receive this treatment -- they contain the essential caveat that the US can change its mind at any time if it deems necessary assangedefense.org/hearing-covera…

Amnesty International: “Such latitude to alter the terms of the core assurances after Assange’s transfer to the US renders them irrelevant from the start since he would remain at risk of ill-treatment in US detention at the point of transfer and afterward” amnesty.org/en/documents/e…

Amnesty International's Julia Hall, “Those are not assurances at all. It is not that difficult to look at those assurances and say: these are inherently unreliable, it promises to do something and then reserves the right to break the promise.”

amnesty.org/en/latest/news…

Responding to the news of so-called “assurances,” Assange's partner @StellaMoris1 said, “What the US is proposing is a formula to keep Julian in prison effectively for the rest of his life.” theguardian.com/media/2021/jul…

The prosecution will also attempt to undermine the testimony of Professor Kopelman, the psychiatrist who examined & interviewed Assange & determined he would be at high risk of suicide if his extradition were ordered. (More on his testimony from Sept '20: assangedefense.org/press-release/…)

Judge interrupts Lewis to confirm that Julian has joined the proceedings late by videolink; a very brief camera shot showed him looking unwell.

Prosecutor breaking up its objections to each aspect of the judge's finding -- whether Assange's mental health condition puts him at high risk of suicide, his personal capacity to resist that impulse, how prospective treatment affects that risk level.

Lewis is attempting to restrict all of these concerns to ADX Florence (the highest-security US prison, built specifically to isolate) and Special Administrative Measures, which are imposed, often in national security cases, to silence a prisoner even further.

Lewis arguing that if these conditions are removed from the equation, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser would have ruled to extradite. (Her January 4th 2021 ruling is here judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…)

Lewis says that in pre-trial confinement, there's no chance that Assange would be fully in administrative segregation (solitary confinement) because he would be allowed to meet with his lawyers whenever he'd like.

Lewis reviewing the defense's claims about treatment of specific inmates in US prisonsI including Chelsea Manning, and says that the defense is mischaracterizing the nature of those prison conditions

https://twitter.com/StellaMoris1/status/1453312957711065092?s=20

https://twitter.com/JohnWRees/status/1453312516315131909

Lewis admits that the US assurances are "conditional." Says they have to be conditional, to allow for the possibility that Assange could do something in prison to warrant SAMs, "otherwise it would give him a blank check to do whatever he’d like."

Note: Lewis referring to the defense claim that the oppressive risk of suicide violates Article 3 -- that's Art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
ukhumanrightsblog.com/incorporated-r…

The prosecution contends that the defense conflates criteria for breaching Art. 3 of the ECoHR and those for breaching Section 91 of the UK Extradition Act ("...that the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him."

Lewis further attempting to distinguish between Assange's present mental state and his prospective mental health in a US prison (where Lewis contends he would have access to psychologists and other resources).

Lewis arguing that the judge didn't determine what Assange's likely sentence would be, suggests the possibility he might not be convicted/sentenced at all. (Over 90% of federal cases result in convictions. Assange to be tried in harshest district: EDVA. pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019…)

Julian could briefly be seen speaking to a guard, then leaving the viewing box from which he was watching the proceedings remotely.

Long discussion over precedent applied in this case, US v Turner (casemine.com/judgement/uk/5…) and USA v Lauri Love (bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/…). Court is now in recess.

Here's our report so far: Assange too unwell to view proceedings remotely; Prosecution claims Assange won't face isolation in U.S. prison
assangedefense.org/hearing-covera…

Lawyers returning to court, proceedings will resume shortly. #FreeAssange

Lewis begins by addressing the defense's reference to the fact that 'assurances' were given only at the appellate stage, arguing that assurances can be provided at any time in an extradition process, not only in evidentiary stage.

Prosecution: Had the Judge notified the US that she was "minded to find that the threshold in section 91 was met, because of the conditions that Mr Assange might be held in, [the US] could have considered offering assurances as part of the hearing."

Prosecution repeatedly claiming that the decision based on the criteria that “the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite" must be based in the present, not in the prospective *future* conditions.

Prosecution trying to say that because the defense argues Assange should (if extradited) be found innocent in the US on First Amendment grounds and disagrees over a likely sentence means that it cannot be considered a foregone conclusion that these prison conditions would arise.

Lewis complains that the defense "simply assumes" that Assange would be sentenced to life in prison in ADX Florence, and "one must be careful" with these types of assumptions.

Lewis now going into Dr Kopelman's testimony, says he relied on Julian's "self-reported" mental health issues whereas the government's psychiatrist took a longer view. "Assange had every reason to exaggerate his symptoms."

Judge's ruling found Dr. Kopelman "is an experienced clinician and he was well aware of the possibility of exaggeration and malingering. I had no reason to doubt his clinical opinion." (judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…)

Lewis returning to complaint that Kopelman 'concealed' Julian's relationship & children with Stella Moris. The judge found this "inappropriate in the context of his obligations to the court, but an understandable human response to Ms. Moris' predicament." judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…

The camera at the Belmarsh viewing room shows Julian is back and following the proceedings. He appears thin and quite tired.

Attempting to undermine more testimony, Lewis's disdainfully says he "won't bother" the judge with reviewing Dr Sondra Crosby's testimony, as "she's just a GP who's a friend of Mr Assange."

District Judge on Dr Crosby:

As in the evidentiary stage, the prosecution is attempting to elevate its own psychiatrist's opinion (Dr Blackwood) over that of Dr Kopelman. Blackwood "accepted there was some risk of a suicide attempt linked to extradition but this did not reach a 'substantial risk' threshold"

Lewis says someone at this level of severe depression would be unable to function, claims that the fact that Assange went to the library in prison contradicts this assessment.

Lewis at great length reviewing the prosecution's issues with the defense's psychiatrist and the preference for its own psychiatrist, rehashing arguments from the evidentiary stage. (From Sept 2020, testimony on Julian's mental health: assangedefense.org/hearing-covera…)

Judge pushes back against Lewis' protracted effort to discredit Dr Kopelman, points out that the judge explicitly said, "I did not accept that Professor Kopelman failed in his duty to the court when he did not disclose Ms. Morris’s relationship with Mr. Assange."

Lewis concluding his remarks with summary of US view that Judge Baraitser should have given much less weight to Kopelman's testimony and much more weight to other factors and witnesses.

Lewis sits. Edward Fitzgerald rises for the defense -- he'll get half hour of response today, and the timing will be reversed tomorrow, with the defense arguing until 4pm London time.

Fitzgerald saying that a judge can't give every reason for accepting or rejecting each piece of evidence (responding to US complaint that the judge didn't explain why she had no reason to doubt Kopelman's testimony).

Defense reiterates that this has all been discussed in the evidentiary stage -- the judge was well aware of the relationship with Stella Moris by Feb 2020, found Kopelman's omission an "understandable human response," explicitly said she did not feel misled.

Fitzgerald points out that actually the judge did explain why she preferred Kopelman's testimony -- Blackwood's "summary of the notes was significantly less detailed than the summary provided by Professor Kopelman and he did not appear to have access to all relevant notes."

As the judge noted in the above excerpt from the ruling, Dr Blackwood didn't even know why Julian was in the healthcare ward at Belmarsh ("Mr. Assange was finding it hard to control his thoughts of self-harm and suicide").

Fitzgerald responds to the US suggestion that suicide risk should only be considered in the present, not in future prison conditions; he points out that actually Kopelman found that the mere *ordering* of Assange's extradition would trigger this grave risk, so this was imminent.

Judge clearly explained why she weighed some testimony more heavily than others. E.g., "Whilst I found Professor Fazel’s approach to risk to be helpful, I accepted Professor Kopelman’s view that statistics and epidemiology take you only so far...."

Fitzgerald going point by point to show where the prosecution said the judge didn't explain her reasoning or address something, she actually said quite explicitly. "I wonder sometimes if we're reading the same judgement!"

Prosecution says judge didn't address capacity to resist suicide. Subhead of her ruling: "The capacity to resist the impulse to suicide"

Prosecution says judge didn't address US prison healthcare. Ruling subhead: "Evidence of mental health care in the BOP generally"

Court is adjourned for the day. We'll be back same time tomorrow morning. Will update today's report shortly (assangedefense.org/hearing-covera…) #AssangeCase

Full updated report on today's appeal hearing in Julian Assange's extradition proceedings: assangedefense.org/hearing-covera…