The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    Political asylum trumps bail "skipping" - it is clearly a case where failing to turn up to be extrad Archived Message

    Posted by CJ on April 13, 2019, 7:32 pm, in reply to "Assange’s ‘Conspiracy’ to Expose War Crimes Has Already Been Punished - Joe Emersberger"

    -ited is justified.

    If the only opportunity you have to seek asylum is to do so when you are physically able to walk into a foreign embassy with their consent international law must clearly support that action. This is despite the technical breach of bail conditions.

    In other words if accepting UK bail conditions was on the presumption of a fair hearing through the UK courts and the latter turned out to be a false presumption due probably to State interference ( as can be seen now from the CPS advising Sweden to maintain their European Arrest Warrant request) and judicial prejudices at all levels - then if you had good reasons to fear for your life by complying with bail conditions and you opted for asylum then surely the Law should exempt you from "skipping bail".

    Further it should be recalled that as of the date of the so-called Bail Hearing the purpose of the bail had dropped away. The original purpose of the bail was to perform under a European Arrest Warrant that had been vacated by the country applying for it ( Sweden dropped the investigation and the EAW in May 2017 ).
    For the judge now to talk about a "serious" breach of bail conditions in the above circumstances is just Orwellian. What is this country coming to - it is the Rule of Lawyers that pervades our rotten society, imo.

    Istead of a Bail Hearing there should have been an Apology Hearing so the court could apologise for breaching JA's human rights for the last few years and grant him compensation ( as determined by the UN working Group http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/A.HRC.WGAD.2015.docx#sthash.3y3QPZJp.dpuf ) at least from the point at which Sweden had originally intended to drop the investigation before being persuaded by the UK State to "stay the course".

    Interesting reading here on the CPS advice to Sweden not to come to the UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Prosecution_Service#Controversy

    and here : not to give up:

    "The newly-released emails show that the Swedish authorities were eager to give up the case four years before they formally abandoned proceedings in 2017 and that the CPS dissuaded them from doing so.

    Some of the material has surfaced from an information tribunal challenge brought late last year by the Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi.

    The CPS lawyer handling the case, who has since retired, commented on an article which suggested that Sweden could drop the case in August 2012. He wrote: “Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!”    .

    http://web.archive.org/web/20190412195709/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-to-drop-assange-extradition-in-2013-cps-emails-show

    and on the UNWGAD : http://opiniojuris.org/2016/03/01/united-nations-working-group-on-arbitrary-detention-decision-on-assange-the-balanced-view/
    "Reasonable and judicial minds have evidently differed on these issues, and emotions have run high. No doubt the initial outcry was coloured by views on the integrity of Assange himself. But human rights are not meant to favour the popular amongst us; they are meant to favour us all. Importantly, human rights limitations demand rigorous State justifications. Over time, these justifications have looked less convincing, and the WGAD is the body best placed to say so."

    With one dissenting voice ( on a technical issue as far as I can see) this is the 2015 UNWGAD decision:

    "Disposition
    99. In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
    The deprivation of liberty of Mr. Assange is arbitrary and in contravention of articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It falls within category III of the categories applicable to the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.
    100. Consequent upon the opinion rendered, the Working Group requests the Government of Sweden and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to assess the situation of Mr. Assange, to ensure his safety and physical integrity, to facilitate the exercise of his right to freedom of movement in an expedient manner, and to ensure the full enjoyment of his rights guaranteed by the international norms on detention.
    101. The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the adequate remedy would be to ensure the right of free movement of Mr. Assange and accord him an enforceable right to compensation, in accordance with article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
    [Adopted on 4 December 2015]"


    The Bail judge is seriously in error imo.

    cheers

    Message Thread: