Thread by @Consortiumnews

Consortium News hopes to be live tweeting from the #Assange court room on this thread, but we have NOT received our video links as yet - neither @unjoe nor @CathyVoganSPK (who had intended to connect via remote access).

If the links do not arrive they will both be in the court room and will endeavour to report from there.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Still no remote access links for @Consortiumnews but the court has said they will try to get ours to us ASAP. #Assange Hearing begins in 20 minutes.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK We have received the remote access link and are now connected to the #Assange courtroom.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK We can now hear audio from the #Assange courtroom.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK All rise!

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Edward Fitzgerald speaking. Judge clarifies. #Assange is ill and will neither attend in person nor via video link.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Edward Fitzgerald very difficult to hear. The microphone has been placed next to a typewriter which is banging away.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF for defence: laying out points of renewal appeal.
1. No extradition for political offences; prosecution is politically motivated.
2. Breach of Article 7 ECHR - unforeseeable crime
3. Article 10 ECHR - freedom of speech
4. Disproportionate penalty
5. Unfair trial for foreigner

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF #Assange not charged for Vault 7 but could be punished for it. CIA already engaged in unlawful conduct - spying - and plotted to extra-judicially kidnap or kill him.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Secretary of State should not extradite because US assurances leave room for @Assange being sentenced to death penalty.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Addressing US-UK Treaty Section 2.1 which bars extradition for political offences. It would be in breach of the Treaty. Exceptions do not include Espionage.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Temporary pause. Journalists in second court room can not hear the proceedings.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK #Assange court back in session.

EF says extradition would breach Article 4 of the US-UK Treaty. Espionage is universally defined as a political offence, which is barred by the Treaty. Court has jurisdiction to refuse such arbitrary abuse of process.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF. DJ & Justice Swift said it was not an abuse of process to request extradition for political offence. We submit that it would violate Article 4 of the treaty. You can't rely on the treaty and ignore it.

Political offence also incorporated in S81A of the 2003 Extradition Act

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: In S.81 of the Extradition Act, political opinions are grouped with race, gender, nationality. Extradition barred for all such forms of discrimination.

S.87 retains Article 5 of the ECHR, ruling out arbitrary extradition.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: Article 5 ECHR protects against abuse of process.
UK court has jurisdiction to investigate if prosecution trying to prejudice the court against a defendant.

Article 4 ECH empowers domestic courts to act.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: The UK has accepted treaty as governing the rules for extradition. All treaties UK has with other countries exclude extradition for political offences.

The applicant #Assange is not relying on the treaty as a sword but a shield.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EH: Is this an intrinsically just decision? Political offence has been successfully adjudicated on for 130 years, and in sophisticated case law within the Act S.81.

No extradition for political offence is age-old in the UK. It's one of the most universally accepted features.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: Espionage & censorship are defined as political offences. For #Assange there was only a Conspiracy to commit Computer Intrusion charge but this was later related to defense information, so it too now is a political offense.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: We cited the Australian cases where treason & espionage are defined as pure political offenses. In other cases, sedition also included within this category.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: Certain acts of violence and terrorism are excluded as political offence, but never espionage. @WikiLeaks was described as an intelligence of the people. Their activities could not be described as other than political.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: #Assange's position was described as spokesman to an international political movement. He was not at the service of a nation state, but the wider interests of humanity.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: Is there any jurisdiction for this court to bar extradition? The answer is yes.

DJ said the police offence exception was removed from the 2003 Extradition Act - but you can't just look at a statute & claim the UK was ignoring its centuries-old treaty. Article 5 ECHR applies.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: DJ said she was relying on the case of Norris. That was totally different case. The US was defined as a country that need not present a prima facie case. Domestic rights were governed by act and not treaty.

We cite Article 4 and 5 of the ECHR.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: There is no dis-application of the US-UK's protective 1972 extradition treaty in the 2003 Act.

The treaty is no conflict between the Treaty and the act, as shown in the Heathrow airport case.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: The European court says you can't just rely on domestic law when it comes to extradition. It must be in harmony with international law. Treaties get incorporated into domestic law. UK court would violate its own treaty to satisfy extradition request for #Assange.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: We are saying Article 5 ECHR is part of UK domestic law via the Human Rights Act.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: DJ deals with abuse of process, citing Ademi, but Lord Bingham relied on a wider context of protection. Breach of Art. 31 would constitute an abuse, which relies on reasonable expectation of prosecution.

We submit that this domestic case law can't apply here to extradition.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK EF: We say it is an abuse of process to ignore our international treaty or obligations. A breach of a Convention can require a stay on extradition.

EF: We say #Assange's extradition is barred by international treaty (political offences) and by S.81 of the UK Extradition Act (political opinions).

Judge: Where can we find this new point about S.81 of the Act?
EF: Up front in this renewal appeal application.

NOTE: It was also in the original appeal Justice Swift rejected

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Mark Summers? speaking now for the defense. He is hard to hear over the typewriter. He is speaking about state criminality.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Summers for the defence is talking about extra-judicial plots to kidnap or kill #Assange and something about selective prosecution but he is almost inaudible over the courtroom typewriter. Why don't they put the microphone closer??

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Many journalists complaining that they can't hear this barrister for the defence. It sounds like the microphone has been placed inside a typewriter. From what we can hear, he is talking about the gravity of the U.S. crimes @WikiLeaks revealed.

Judge is asking for references

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK We are seeking remedy for the inaudibility of this barrister

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Summers says prosecution aimed at silencing #Assange's political opinions and reporting on state criminality.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS for Defence: There are other examples of state law-fare aimed at silencing reports of criminality and corruption.

MS: Talking about state retaliation for reporting on their offences. Emil Zola's 'J'accuse' describes treatment of Dreyfus. Mentioned in Australian courts. He was treated as a refugee. Neither District judge nor prosecution considered this, but there was compelling evidence of US's motivation.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS: Citing DJ's ruling which said Defense argues that Mr Assange's reporting puts him in the cross-hairs of the US. Pure speculation.

There is evidence in @WikiLeaks disclosures of state level judicial interference in a number of countries.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS: Seeking impunity for state crime is a violation of international law. US sought global impunity.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS: US threatened the ICC and said it would use criminal prosecution against anyone who cooperated with ICC.

#Assange was not prosecution for 6 years. DJ did not ask why. DJ did not considered sudden action in late 2016, when ICC announced it would investigate US crimes.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS: Both @WikiLeaks documents and #Assange's presence were essential at the ICC in their proceedings against the US.

DJ acknowledged CIA had been hostile to Assange but dismissed because they did not represent the state.

MS: In fairness to the DJ, she had no idea, nor did the defense, that the phrase "hostile non-state intelligence agency" had legal significance. She was looking for administration-level hostility, not understand the evidence she had received.

It enabled CIA to bypass Congress but President Trump himself had requested sketches for how to kill or rendition #Assange.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS: DJ didn't see the red flags everywhere. She heard evidence from UC Global staff but now there is evidence in the @Yahoo News report that both CIA & the administration plotted to kidnap or kill him.

Prosecution of #Assange was simply a legal framework to achieve the same end.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS: DJ knew that prosecution of #Assange had all the hallmarks of persecution. It was selective. She knew the charges were ramped up 17 times - even thought the facts remained identical to the original charge. And she knew that extradition on the 17 new counts was prohibited.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS: This court is obliged to intervene when a DJ ignores relevant facts or errs in judgement. A bad faith extradition request must be refused.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS: I move to the next ground: Article 7 (foreseeability of criminal sanction). Not the main point. Article 10 (freedom of speech) is.

Prosecution for unforeseeable crime is arbitrary. Journalists outside of government had never been prosecuted for espionage before.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK MS: It was DJ's responsibility to see that Article 7 was not breached, and to ensure it was in line with the US's 5th Amendment. It is not.

NatSec leaks to press is normalised in Washington, as the publishing of those leaks. Leakers have been prosecuted but never journalists.

MS: When Espionage Act was first enacted, a version of it that applied to the press, was rejected. The First Amendment says the freedom of the press must not be abridged.

Judge: Have there been cases for prosecution for disclosure of large numbers of human sources.

MS: Yes: Only the defendants passport was confiscated.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK Court is in recess for lunch.

@unjoe @CathyVoganSPK @threadreaderapp unroll