- Assange's trials, A timeline. Archived Message
Posted by George Brennan
on August 25, 2019, 3:02 pm, in reply to "Re: Assange's invisible support"
|
The law is even more mysterious to some of us than Labour HQ. Very confusing. There is Swedish extradition, there is US extradition. There are magistrates courts, crown courts and appeal courts, and a bevy of judges each having a good opinion of each others opinions. To clarify my own mind I am constructing a little time line. It may help others, not least to avoid factual errors. Lady Emma Arbuthnot was there at the very beginning and wants to be there at the end. In 2018 she found the idea absurd that Sweden would ever accede to a US extradition request; let us remind her of those words on February 24. Myself I think there is hope an appeal court will overturn her deportation verdict if she decides on it next February 24. Higher courts tend to have higher brainpower. On the other hand I see little chance that an appeal will reduce the maximum Crown Court sentence by passed Deborah Taylor for skipping bail. He did skip bail, he did stay away a very long time, and his fear of deportation may be dismissed as irrelevance rather than extenuation. Another ongoing piece of legal business is the delay by a Swedish local court responding the current Swedish Prosecutors request for a warrant. Lady Emma Arbuthnot cannot be personally too well disposed to Assange; she is unlikely to take a kindlier view him than did her fawning underling Judge Michael Snow. And to put the old tin lid on it, it may have sounded to her like sarcastic insolence from Assange when he mistakenly addressed her as “Milady” on his video link. According to the Register: “English courts, and judges in particular, are hypersensitive to matters of trifling social protocol. In the magistrates' courts you call the judges Sir or madam. In the Crown courts you call them Your Honour, and for anything above that it's Milord or Milady, à la Parker from Thunderbirds.” . TIMELINE [recent topmost] 14 June 2019 Assange on video link. Senior Magistrate Lady Emma Arbuthnot rules Assange will face US extradition hearing Feb 24 2020. 13 June 2019. UK home secretary signs off on US extradition “WikiLeaks' Julian Assange will face a full extradition[USA] hearing on 24 February next year, Westminster Magistrates' Court ruled this morning. The Chief Magistrate, Lady Emma Arbuthnot, is presiding over the initial extradition proceedings of Assange. She presided over a February 2018 application by Assange to cancel his arrest warrant [Sweden]. The application was denied and she followed up with a detailed explanation of her decision”. – The Register 14 June https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/14/wikileaks_assange_extradition_case_date_24_feb/ “The Chief Magistrate, Lady Emma Arbuthnot, is presiding over the initial extradition proceedings of Assange. She presided over a February 2018 application by Assange to cancel his arrest warrant [re Sweden]. The application was denied and she followed up with a detailed explanation of her decision. However, Arbuthnot [despite apparent call for her to recuse herself?] continues to rule on Assange matters.” -- Canary 17 June 1 May 2019 Crown court Judge Deborah Taylor gives maximum sentence for skipping bail [re Sweden]. “Nobody is above the law” I cannot find Taylor ever speaking of Swedish “charges”. “ I have considered, and had regard to the Sentencing Council Guidelines for failing to surrender to bail, the seriousness of the failure to surrender, the level of culpability and the harm caused. This was in terms of culpability a deliberate attempt to evade or delay justice. In terms of harm, there are several features of this case which put this in the A1 category, but in addition, are exceptional in seriousness, and therefore in my judgment put this offence outside the Guideline range for even the highest category offences. The Magistrates Court has committed the matter to this court having considered that its powers of sentence were insufficient. Firstly, by entering the Embassy, you deliberately put yourself out of reach, whilst remaining in the UK. You remained there for nearly 7 years, exploiting your privileged position to flout the law and advertise internationally your disdain for the law of this country. Your actions undoubtedly affected the progress of the Swedish proceedings. Even though you did co-operate initially, it was not for you to decide the nature or extent of your co-operation with the investigations. They could not be effectively progressed, and were discontinued, not least because you remained in the Embassy. Secondly, your continued residence in the Embassy has necessitated a concentration of resources, and expenditure of £16 million of taxpayers’ money in ensuring that when you did leave, you were brought to justice. It is essential to the rule of law that nobody is above or beyond the reach of the law. Orders of the Court are to be obeyed Thirdly, you have not surrendered willingly. Had the Government of Ecuador not permitted entry to the Embassy, you would not have voluntarily come before the court. I have taken into account all that has been said on your behalf in mitigation, including the background history of this case which has been set out in some detail. These are matters which have previously been argued before the Chief Magistrate in relation to the instigation of s.6 proceedings and dismissed in her Ruling of 13 February 2018 on your application to withdraw the warrant, and again before the District Judge in the contested hearing on 11 April 2019 [Snow] in which you did not give evidence, and they were rejected as affording any defence. They include the history of the Swedish investigation and proceedings, with the discontinuance of the proceedings in 2017, and your expressed fear of being extradited to Sweden but then rendered to the USA. As far as the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention opinion is concerned, this is not binding on this court, and, as is apparent from the ruling of the Chief Magistrate, with some personal knowledge of the matters relied upon, it was underpinned by misconceptions of fact and law. " Deborah gave a 50 week sentence to forestall easy headline talk of “maximum sentence” . We shall ignore her quibble. There is I understand an ongoing appeal against Judge Deborah’s maxium sentence. Deborah was upholding Michael who was upholding Lady Emma, who was dismissive of Assange’s fears of onward deportation to the USA. Deborahs sentencing remarks: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/sentencing-remarks-assange-010519.pdf her guidelines: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/failure-to-surrender-to-bail/ 11 April 2019 Magistrates Court Judge Michael Snow finds Assange guilty of skipping bail [re Sweden]. Finds no mitigation in his fears. Magistrate Court can only give 3 months. Refers to Crown Court so as to get maximum sentence “His assertion that he has not had a fair hearing [From Emma Arbuthnot in February 2018] is laughable. And his behaviour is that of a narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interests.” [Defender Walker had claimed that chief magistrate Emma Arbuthnot was was biased because Her husband, Lord Arbuthnot, had been directly affected by the activities of WikiLeaks, Walker alleged.] Snow called it “unacceptable” for Walker to air the claim in front of a “packed press gallery”. He told the court: “This is grossly unfair and improper to do it just to ruin the reputation of a senior and able judge in front of the press. “He [Assange] has chosen not to give evidence, he has chosen to make assertions about a senior judge not having [had] the courage to place himself before the court for the purpose of cross-examination.” Guardian report [It surprised many that a judge can expose his tabloid prejudices like this, but he was not directing a Jury so I doubt an appeal lawyer could make much out of his apoplexy] 13 February 2o18 Chief Magistrate Lady Emma Magistrates Arbuthnot Court upholds international arrest warrant. 13."Ecuador, a friendly foreign State, had considered Mr Assange’s fears and declared them to be well founded and that the risks to him were and remain real. 14.I accept that Mr Assange had expressed fears of being returned to the United States from a very early stage in the Swedish extradition proceedings but, absent any evidence from Mr Assange on oath, I do not find that Mr Assange’s fears were reasonable. I do not accept that Sweden would have rendered Mr Assange to the United States. If that had happened there would have been a diplomatic crisis between the United Kingdom, Sweden and the United States which would have affected international relationships and extradition proceedings between the states. 15.Rather than rendering Mr Assange to the United States, if the US had initiated a request to extradite Mr Assange from Sweden, Sweden would have contacted this court and the judiciary here would have had to consider the request. Mr Assange would then have been able to raise any bars to extradition including fair trial and conditions of detention. " Here Emma, a UK judge, volunteers to give Assange a firm assurance that Sweden would never deport him to the USA. Yet the Swedish Prosecuter has apparently refused to give even the hint of such an assurance. For UN legal scholars that refusal that would have made his fears more objectively “reasonable” and such fears would mitigate a maximum sentence for bail skipping. Michael Snow was resting his his case on Emma’s judgment when he inflicted the maximum sentence possible. APPENDIX Chris Hedges: the coming show trial: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/06/17/coming-show-trial-julian-assange |