Thread by @richimedhurst

LIVE THREAD: Julian Assange vs Govt of the United States

Day 2 of Extradition Appeal

I’m attending #Assange’s High Court hearing remotely. I’ll have live updates below on day 2 of the appeal hearing, taking place at the Royal Courts of Justice, London.

Live updates below:

The hearing is set to begin at 10:30am London time, in less than fifteen minutes. I and other journalists are still waiting to be let in as far as I can tell.

Yesterday, Julian #Assange was in fact prevented from coming to the appeal hearing at the High Court. He requested to be there in person but his request was rejected.

https://twitter.com/StellaMoris1/status/1453452062163877892

Here is a full thread of the proceedings on day 1:

https://twitter.com/richimedhurst/status/1453286771433910272

Yesterday the United States’ lawyers appealed to the High Court in London to overturn a UK district court judge’s decision in January not to extradite Assange. These were the grounds of appeal determined at the preliminary hearing on August 11th:

https://twitter.com/richimedhurst/status/1453289409936232454

We are connected

Julian #Assange's partner @StellaMoris1 outside the court "The story about the plans to assassinate and kidnap Julian from London will be discussed in court today."

The prosecution sought to dispute the medical evidence provided by key medical expert Prof. Kopelman, arguing that other doctors who testified did not arrive at the exact same conclusions. They also sought to discuss inadmissibility v weight regarding his testimony, pertaining to

Kopelman's decision not to disclose the relationship between #Assange and Moris. This was exploited as a means to attack his integrity and duty to the court as an expert witness.
The prosecution argued the judge incorrectly applied the criteria and threshold of Sec 91 under EA,

and that she gave far too much weight to Kopelman's medical evidence. They argued that she would have arrived at a different conclusion had she been offered the diplomatic assurances from the United States that Assange will not be jailed at ADX Florence nor placed under SAMs,

..however the United States maintains that it reserves the right to place him under SAMs if he were to meet the tests required for doing so.

The prosecution had most of yesterday to lay down their arguments with the grounds of appeal decided on August 11th. Today we will hear the defense respond to these arguments.

Assange's lawyer Fitzgerald begins responding to the points by the prosecution yesterday: if sent to the United States #Assange is going to be put in admin segregation (Ad seg), which is effectively solitary confinement, or SAMs.

F: There is no legitimate complaint on ground 1. There is no failure by judge to follow the turner criteria or a dilution of that. Nor is it right to criticize her on the basis of future eventualities. The [suicide] risk was even beforehand, before extradition was imminent.

F: When judge says she prefers Kopelman, she always gives reasons. You can't expect a judge to give reasons for reasons. It's sufficient if the reasons are as little as: his report is more detailed, or he's more of an expert on this area. Which of course would apply to Dr. Deeley

F: Everyone accepted that he [Deeley] is an expert on ASD (Asperger's). Fazel, Blackwood agreed, and Kopelman referred the matter to him. That's why Deeley carried out the test.

When asked [about ASD], Fazel (medical expert witness for prosecution) said "I'm not an expert".

F: So when the prosecution say #Assange's ASD diagnosis was from a 'lone' person-- he [Dr. Deeley] is an expert ! He's the expert people look to in this matter.

F: the evidence that extradition would be oppressive to #Assange is sufficient and the judge applied the [Turner] test correctly.

One of the judges briefly interrupts Fitzgerald to add: "We have to remember with Lauri Love, the judge concluded that he wouldn't succeed in committing suicide in America."

Fitzgerald addresses the notion put forward by the prosecution, that conditions must currently be oppressive, (as opposed to later on), in order to block extradition.

F: "Imagine if Parliament said: 'we'll never look at the futher consequences'....

....Parliament clearly didn't say 'we'll look at things that happen in the first 6 months'. Imagine the person were to be put in torturous condition after 2 years. It would still be oppressive, even if it happens later on down the line."

@jeremycorbyn: "I want all of our media, irrespective of which billionaire owns that particular channel or newspaper, to report the truth about the way in which Julian Assange has been treated, and demand this Court rejects the appeal."

#Assange's lawyers explain that the decision not to extradite must consider: that if the person's state is such, that no matter the conditions, that they would take their life, then this makes the extradition oppressive.

F: This is not just a question of an uncontrollable impulse to commit suicide. If someone is driven by their mental disorder to take their life, then it is oppressive.

F: If the predictive thing is: 'he'll commit suicide no matter the steps taken' - that satisfies the test, even if there are protections in place. The judge said: not only are protective steps insufficient, the conditions would in fact make things worse. #Assange

F: The fact you have standard protective measures in place isn't enough. There are cases where the degree of mental disorder and suicide risk is such that the defendant can't be extradited. That's a humane approach by Parliament

F: To the argument that this puts the requesting state [the US] in an impossible situation: well Parliament put this protection in place FOR the seriously mentally ill.

F: Look at how the case law is developed. If you're saying the judge got i wrong, she didn't. She acted exactly in accordance

F: If my friend [Lewis] wants to change the law, that's fine in the future. But at the time, the judge [Baraitser] was acting strictly in accordance with the law [when she blocked #Assange extradition on health grounds].

F: If he [#Assange] will circumvent any protective measures, [and take his life] then it is our position that the extradition is oppressive.

F: The US in these cases simply put in witness statements, they don't subject themselves to cross-examination. "They cross-examine til the cows come home" the defense experts on the prison conditions, but do not subject themselves to cross-examination. #Assange

F: There are countries however, for example in Russia, where they call the interior minister to give evidence to say: we will take all these protective steps.

Assange's lawyers: let us bring the Americans to court to say that they will promise to protect #Assange

(referring to federal prosecutor AUSA Kromberg who was not cross-examined by defense).

F: if you get extradited to a foreign state be it Russia, UAE... Parliament is giving the courts the power to protect because you can't simply make the assumption that they have equivalent or greater protections.

F: Parliament has created this thing to pretend the mentally and physically disordered from an extradition that is oppressive.

F: It's not inconsistent to say: we'll give people additional protections before they're sent irretrievably to a foreign state.

F: I accept that it then becomes a factual issue. But here, the minimum is that the conditions accepted by the judge (SAMs or ADX Florence) she found them oppressive.

Assange's lawyers mention to the judge the plots by the #CIA to potentially kill or kidnap #Assange: "There are grave concerns about what may happen to him."

F: Judge Baraitser was simply saying: the conditions in the US will not alleviate but may actually worsen Assange's condition.

The prosecution argued yesterday that to meet the threshold of sec 91 (blocking extradition) #Assange must be in such a state that he can't resist the impulse to commit suicide. The defense is arguing this is not how mental health works...

... and that psychiatrists "don't speak in those terms" (as one of the medical experts said last year during extradition hearing). A person may still be driven to suicide by their mental disorder, and not necessarily by impulse. Therefore the extradition is still oppressive.

Defense argue that Parliament added Section 91 specifically to protect the mentally & physically ill, because one can't just assume that the United States will protect Assange. In fact, the judge made it clear extradition would worsen his health & drive him to take his own life.

.@WikiLeaks Editor-in-chief @khrafnsson speaks outside the court: "There were plans to kidnap Julian here in the center of London or even assassinate him. How is it possible for this country to extradite Julian to the state that made these plans?”

Responding to prosecution's argument that the defense are taking a "crystal ball type approach"; that one cannot simply assume Assange would be put in oppressive conditions in the future

F: "Parliament has not constructed any artificial limits how far you can look down the line"

Responding to the prosecution's argument that "no one ever extradited from the UK to US has committed suicide", Assange's lawyers says: that's precisely because the English courts assured that people like Lauri Love or Gary McKinnon aren't placed in that kind of risk.

Assange's lawyers say that requirements/critera for blocking an extradition under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and those of Section 91 are different.

Section 91 doesn't require to find some fault on the part of the requesting state [the US]. It can be oppressive simply because of the consequence of extradition. Whereas in Article 3, there are more requirements. The tests/criteria differ.

Assange's lawyers say Sec 91 adds an additional protection and Parliament clearly didn't intend for reassurances from the US to be relied upon.

Regarding Prof. Kopelman "misleading" the court. Assange's lawyers argue the judge found no such thing.

F: The US has recklessly, publicly stated on a number of occasions that there was a finding the court had been misled [by Kopelman]. This is not true.

Judge interjects: but his first report was misleading?

F: Yes, but there were a number of reports that the court had been misled (not the same thing).

Assange's lawyers say that it's not true Kopelman misled the court; the judge found no such thing and accepted his explanation

F: Assange voluntarily told Dr. Blackwood (one of the prosecution's medical experts) that he had had two children with Stella Moris.

The prosecution had nothing kept from them by Assange. This is merely out of concern by Kopelman for the privacy and safety of Assange's family.

F: I accept it would have been better if Assange had said 'I can't disclose the name of my partner'.

But the second report by Kopelman in August 2019 does mention her name..

Assange's lawyers refer to the CIA's plots against him: "They were taking counsel's notes and photocopying them. They were seeking DNA from the nappies of one of Stella Moris' children. There was even even talk of poisoning or kidnapping Julian #Assange"

F: If you look at the chronology: the Spanish revelations of intrusive surveillance began coming out in May 2019....

Assange's lawyers are explaining why Assange and Moris feared for their safety and privacy; this was just after revelations of surveillance by Spanish firm UC Global (at behest of US intelligence).
Stella Moris also moved to a different address, for more protection.

There was pressure to submit evidence as Feb 2020 hearing was nearing.
"It then became clear that this hearing wasn't going to deal with more than the treaty".

Kopelman therefore chose not to name Moris of his own accord, #Assange didn't ask him to do that.

Assange's lawyers point out how the prosecution's lawyers "make a great hullabaloo" that Assange had had two children in the embassy. But not one of the other psychiatrists wrote about this in their reports, now that it's become known.

Blackwood had known about Assange's children from March onward.

Responding to the prosecution's argument that the district judge didn't address this properly, Fitzgerald points again to Baraitser's ruling where she says Kopelman's concealment of @StellaMoris1' identity was "an understandable human response to Ms. Morris’s predicament"

F: If [Kopelman] did this on legal advice, and the court isn't misled, but gets the full picture -- it isn't unreasonable for the judge to say "this was an understandable human response". She also says, the court knew already in April 2020 before even hearing medical evidence.

F: She [the judge] does not say it's "not important for the rules to be observed". She says: the rule was not abided by, but in the particular circumstances, I find it was understandable and does not breach.
It does not negate Kopelman's independence and impartiality.

F: Prof Kopelman concealing the identity of @StellaMoris1 and her children was not done in cahoots with Julian #Assange and Stella Moris, or to obtain a tactical advantage. It was done to protect their privacy and safety. This isn't grounds for exclusion or inadmissibility.

Assange's lawyers argue that when all is known and understood, it's not a reason to say that [Kopelman's medical evidence] should be given no or less weight.

Assange's lawyers: "This is a miserable attempt [by the United States' lawyers] to tarnish the reputation of a distinguished neuro-psychiatrist"

Defense respond to prosecution's argument that the judge didn't explain why she prefers Kopelman's medical testimony over that of the experts called by prosecution.

Fitzgerald says that Baraitser did set this out in her ruling; she does explain this, contrary to what Lewis claims.

She set out why she thinks the evidence of Dr. Blackwood wasn't as compelling as that of Prof. Kopelman and Dr. Deeley

Baraitser deals with Blackwood (called by the prosecution) and his view on high risk of suicide. Judge found Dr. Blackwood's "summary of the notes was significantly less detailed than the summary provided by Professor Kopelman

F: on the criticism that the judge didn't address what a "high risk of suicide" means, this is not true. She addressed numerous findings by all the medical experts, incl. those of prosecution.

F: Though helpful, statistics can only take one so far. There is no sound basis to reject the judge's finding of risk of suicide, which took full account of the medical evidence and medical records.

Fitzgerald points to Fazel (called by the prosecution) who said #Assange's risk of suicide is dynamic, and difficult to predict.

F: It's impossible to predict danger with certainty, the courts only do so because they must.

Assange's lawyers say that in the United States there are people jailed for a "joint of marijuana". So Fazel's notion that Assange would have a lower risk of suicide compared to other prisoners in the US v in UK, is inaccurate, because US has a prison population 7 times higher.

Regarding "impulsivity" to commit suicide. Fitzgerald gives the example of a poor woman who would take her life if extradited, driven by her mental disorder. Such cases cannot be excluded.

Just because it's not "impulsive", doesn't mean there isn't a risk of suicide. Some mental disorders are characterized by impulse, others not.

F makes this point because the prosecution are arguing that only one doctor (Kopelman) said Assange cannot control the impulse to commit suicide, and therefore, Assange is mentally fit to be extradited.

Defense are making it clear, however, that one doesn't have to be impulsive to be at risk of suicide. Many people make plans to take their own lives, driven by their mental disorder.

Defense address prosecution's criticism of Prof Kopelman citing report by UN Special Rapporteur on Torture @NilsMelzer, that Assange showed "all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, incl extreme stress, chronic anxiety & intense psychological trauma."

F: You can't say to Kopelman that he shouldn't quote @NilsMelzer because there are "lousy" parts in Melzer's report- which Kopelman doesn't even quote.
Melzer visited Assange in Belmarsh with a psychiatrist and includes that assessment in his report- that's what Kopelman quotes.

Court is in recess, will be back after lunch break

Protesters outside the High Court shouting “Free, free Julian #Assange”

I see a few people coming back in the court.

I will go live later to break down today's #Assange hearing at the links below. Thanks for backing independent journalism:

►Rokfin: rokfin.com/richardmedhurst
►Substack: richardmedhurst.substack.com
►YouTube: youtube.com/richardmedhurst

.@rebecca_vincent from @RSF_inter: "We've gotten back in to monitor this morning, only because I was on the family's list, but things are a little less tense than yesterday.”

Court is back in session.

Assange's lawyers mention the surveillance of Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy by UC Global, "believed to be acting in conjunction" with the US.
This is to explain the context in which Stella Morris, Assange's partner and their 2 children, feared for their safety and privacy.

Fitzgerald for the defense: Kopelman is informed by #Assange that there was monitoring, which he referenced in his report. It is of course corroborated by the 2 anonymous witnesses [of UC Global] and the evidence they provided.

Assange lawyers say that none of the psychiatrists accused Assange of malingering or faking his mental illness. They were in agreement that he suffered from depression.

Fitzgerald (for the defense) closes and Mark Summers (defense) takes over.

.@wikileaks Editor-in-chief @khrafnsson: "At the end of the day lets not forget what this is all about. Why are we here? This is a political persecution of a journalist who exposed war crimes and the secrets of the United States.”

Summers argues that there's no guarantee the US will follow through on the diplomatic assurances not to place Julian under SAMs, or to jail him in ADX Florence, a federal super-maximum prison.

He says it's too late for the US to be offering those assurances now after a judge already ruled against them:

"That should have happened much earlier"

S says the United States had every opportunity to offer these assurances before, but chose to run the case differently for perceived tactical benefit, and has lost.

S says the question is: did the US have a fair opportunity to introduce these assurances before? Lewis (prosecution) maintains they didn't. We don’t believe that to be the case

S says the United States had every opportunity to offer these assurances before, but chose to run the case differently for perceived tactical benefit, and has lost.

S: The US response now, that there is no real risk of SAMs is untrue. Summers is now referring to statements made by federal prosecutor Kromberg. He said that SAMs are a possibility, and that the CIA can decide to impose them on Assange, he spoke of the regime & subject to remedy

At the time the US position was "SAMs are possible, but they're okay". This was followed by days of evidence of whether they are okay.

They spoke of Abu Hamza's experience; how there are no checks on the attorney general's power to impose them.

S says that Kromberg doubled down, making more submissions about how "okay" SAMs are. He claimed that under SAMs prisoners have access to other parts of the prison, it's not solitary, they have due process...

S: Ms Baird, former warden of MCC in New York, provided evidence during the extradition hearing last year, disagreeing point by point with Mr. Kromberg's assertions about availability of counseling, programs, of inmates to speak with each other, due process, free flowing mail.

S refers to judge's ruling which contains evidence from Ms Baird, former warden of MCC, New York, on pre-trial SAMs conditions: “Inmates were in solitary confinement, technically, for 24-hours per day. There was absolutely no communication, by any means, with other inmates."

"Ms. Baird confirmed that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide at the jail last year. Before that, there had been no suicides during the previous 13 years"

Assange lawyers: "the notion that the United States didn't have an opportunity before hand to take SAMs off the table is, with all due respect, nonsense"

More claims by the United States' Kromberg that #Assange would not suffer under restrictive prison conditions known as SAMs: he could play crochet, engage in poetry, communicate with the cells below him and above him (seemingly through the plumming)

According to them, #Assange could "recreate individually”. Summers calls it a "brilliant euphemism".

Summers: The notion that the US government had no opportunity to offer assurances is wrong. They had every opportunity to take it off the table, but for tactical reasons, chose to argue the case differently.

Summers reminds the court that Attorney General and the CIA would be the ones to decide whether #Assange would be placed under SAMs

Summers is now asking the judges to look at the @YahooNews investigation, regarding the CIA discussing plans to potentially kill and or kidnap Julian #Assange

Summers says if they have any questions about its authenticity, that former CIA director Mike Pompeo is on record confirming it's true.

I'm just speculating, but I think he's likely referring to this

consent.yahoo.com/v2/collectCons…

Summers says that according to those US officials interviewed (for the article), that there would be something in place (charges) waiting for #Assange in the event they did render him back to the US

He then points to the Spanish involvement (UC Global working with US) of potentially poisoning or kidnapping #Assange

Assange's lawyers: given all the evidence of CIA working to kidnap and/or poison #Assange-- "how likely is it that this agency is to certify Assange as someone who should be placed under SAMs the moment he sets foot in the USA?"

Summers: It is extremely likely that #Assange will be placed under SAMs as soon as he gets to the US. "It will happen, regardless of whether the doctors said isolation will lead to death."

S: These assurances take us nowhere at all because it [SAMs] can still happen.

S: What if the US could redo the case and say: no ADX or SAMs ever. Well Lewis doesn't ask that, but what if they really were to take it off the table? Well sorry, but our impression would still be that these conditions await Assange.

S: Assange will be placed at pre-trial at the ADC Alexandria, for years in ad seg, and/or protective custody in ad seg. Under administrative segregation he'll still be in his cell 20+ hours a day -- in solitary. "It's SAMs but without additional restrictions on communication".

S: In terms of ad seg, despite all evidence from witnesses, Kromberg still says: they're possible, but they're okay because you get all the prison services, unless you're deemed to be a security risk.

S: The US say it's not solitary because inmates can communicate with each other through the doors-- by shouting.

Summers: "You can proceed entirely confidently, that in the event of surrender to the USA, Julian #Assange will enter into administrative segregation (ad seg) at Alexandria for years"

Judge: why years?

S: that's how long it will take before a trial can even happen

S: this is just ad seg, never mind if he's placed under SAMs which will further restrict communication.

Summers: #Assange would be in isolation even in ad seg. The US assurances about maybe not having SAMs aren't enough.

"It's administrative segregation or SAMs that are [both] identified as the source of isolation."

The US prosecution tried to imply that Assange would only be in isolation (therefore heightened risk of suicide) in SAMs, and therefore if there are no SAMs = no worsening mental health. Defense are pointing out that ad seg will also isolate #Assange. They're both oppressive.

Summers points to Judge Baraitser's ruling in January. She found that "Mr. #Assange faces the bleak prospect of severely restrictive detention conditions."

"Mr. Assange had told him of the profound degree of psychological suffering he expected to experience in administrative segregation..."

S: Ad seg IS isolation. There is no assurance from the United States not to place #Assange under ad seg. All the evidence, incl Kromberg's, is that ad seg is in prospect for Mr. Assange.

S: Even hypothetically, if SAMs were off the table (they're not, because they're practically certain), ad seg is oppressive.

Summers: Ad seg is SAMs, but without restrictions on communication

S: Even if ADX Colorado is off the table, Assange would be sent to a Communications Management Unit (CMU), according to Lewis, Kromberg...

S: It's a prison within a prison; an experiment in social isolation. Correspondence is limited to one 6-page-letter a week to 1 recipient.

S: Alternatively, #Assange would be headed for a High Security Unit in a high security prison, or a Special Housing Unit in a high security prison

S: About 5% of Federal Bureau of Prisons inmates reside in Special Housing Units: special units inside prisons, designed to isolate prisoners from each other and the outside world.

S: This is why assurances from the US at this stage are so wrong. Had we known that ADX was off the table, we would have focused submissions on special housing units, erected in any prison. Mr Noriega was cut off from the world in a SHU designed just for him.

S: Had ADX been off the table, the evidence would have come before, there would have been more submissions, and the district judge would have had to grapple with Special Housing Units. You don't find it in her judgement because it wasn't brought up before.

S: Even in the event of acquittal in the US, what witnesses said, is that even if #Assange is acquitted, what Kromberg can do is summon him before a grand jury, and incarcerate him for civil contempt, and place him in a special housing unit.

If the medical care at ADX is at the judge believes, then an assurance that Assange will receive any care the ADX commission recommends, takes us nowhere at all

Assange's lawyers are now addressing the United States' assurance of allowing Assange to serve out a potential sentence in Australia.

S: This would only work if Mr Kromberg doesn't subpoena Assange back into custody and civil contempt, as he's done in other cases...

And only then, Australia would have to agree [to take Assange]-- they may or may not. Could depend on issues of dual criminality; one has to consider there are many political decision makers involved. And ultimately, there is no indication from Australia they'll take Assange.

Even if everything worked out, it would still take years to process.

S: The wording of this "assurance" is important, especially in regards to American law. It appears that it would only bind the prosecutor to consent, not the Department of Justice to grant it.

Summers is now referring to the case of Mendoza.The Spanish Court made Mendoza’s extradition conditional on prisoner transfer back to Spain to serve any sentence.
S: Mendoza applied and then the DoJ refused on the basis: we the DoJ never promised we would grant it.

The point here is that the United States' assurance is meaningless. Should Assange ask to be sent to Australia to serve out a potential sentence, the DoJ is under no obligation to grant the transfer, because only the prosecutors have "assured" this -- not the DoJ.

(This isn't only about serving sentence in Australia but assurances from the US in general.)

S: one is going to have a result that doesn't match what you expect to receive. And this won't matter to the US courts.

The defense offer other examples: Abu Hamza was sent to ADX after being promised a transfer to an appropriate medical facility by the US. Haroon Aswat's extradition was contingent on assurances of psychiatric placement & treatment. Upon arrival to the US, he was not hospitalized.

S: "Its loose wording ought to have alerted this court, that the very opposite might happen."

S: US govt had plans to do serious harm to Julian #Assange. Mr. Pompeo has said that some of that true.

Summers closes by recalling that the United States government has contemplated, if not plotted, kidnapping, poisoning and assassinating Julian #Assange. Therefore, there must be an investigation of the assurances presented by the United States and if they can be trusted.

Defense has finished, Lewis rises for the prosecution.

Lewis counters by saying that Abu Hamza was never given diplomatic assurances. Regarding Mendoza, he was allowed to return to serve sentence in Spain. Regarding Manning, he says this was a court marshal and hence not relevant.

Lewis maintains that diplomatic assurances can be offered at any time in the process.

Lewis: "A diplomatic assurance is a solemn undertaking given out at the highest order. These are not dished out like smarties".

Lewis says that Assange would not be in conditions akin to SAMs under ad seg. Ad seg only applies in pre-trial, and would only be in ADC Alexandria which is a "very well-run jail".

In ad seg you're allowed communication, attend 3 programs with gen pop. You can meet with your lawyers on an unlimited basis. The defense is characterizing ad seg as not simply isolation but solitary confinement. "It is impossible to describe that as solitary confinement"

L: Acc to the European court as to why SAMs are not oppressive, it's because it's not solitary confinement if you can meet with your lawyer on unlimited occasions. It's simply not isolation; you have 2 in a cell.

L: "When [the defense] calls it solitary confinement it's simply nonsense. If we look at judge ruling, she only dealt with conditions of SAMs and ADX."

L:"Ad seg and SAMs are completely different."

L: If Assange is placed in SHU, Kromberg makes it clear that it's not solitary confinement.

L: the defense is now saying: ah what the judge actually did is that the very finding of extradition would drive him to suicide.

L: "Everything was aimed at the conditions of SAMs and ADX. Mr. Assange is thinking ' I'll be sent to SAMs and ADX'. He now knows he's not going to go to SAMs and ADX. That MUST reduce the suicidal ideology. Now he knows he's not going to be subject to that."

L: "He's not going to spend his life subject to SAMs in the ADX. In addition, he knows he will get required medical care. Because the United States have never broken a diplomatic assurance, ever."

L: "Assange knows if convicted he can serve his sentence his Australia. Now he has hope to look forward to that."

L: "All those matters must greatly reduce the risk of suicide."

L: Kopelman's assessment was based on worst case scenario of SAMs in ADX.

https://twitter.com/richimedhurst/status/1453746250931654674?s=20

Lewis is pointing to various statements from the medical experts, making the point that Assange is only "moderately" depressed.

#Breaking: The judges say they've been given "much to think about" and will consider everything. No ruling given yet.

For now the Julian #Assange extradition appeal hearing at the High Court is concluded.

I'll be going on television shortly, and later live on YouTube, to break down the #Assange High Court proceedings.

Thank you for supporting independent journalism.
►Subscribe: youtube.com/richardmedhurst
►Support: patreon.com/richardmedhurst
►Donate: paypal.me/papichulomin

I’m live on RT to break down today’s hearing in the #Assangecase

Watch here:

.@StellaMoris1 earlier:"His lawyers had been targeted by name, his Spanish lawyer's office was broken into, his lawyers’ notes seized and copied, our eldest son's DNA was instructed to be stolen. My mother was followed, I was followed— Julian was spied on in every single detail."

.@wallacemick after court: "The idea that we would accept any assurance from a state that has been lawless for the best part of a hundred years. The US has been a colonial project since the day of its founding, starting with the genocide of the Native Indians of North America.”

Strong speech by @ClareDalyMEP: "It's a crime that we have to be here in support of the person who more than anyone else has exposed US war crimes in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The criminals walk free and Julian Assange is persecuted – that is a crime!"