The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    Re: Assange in Belmarsh Archived Message

    Posted by margo on September 1, 2019, 11:50 am, in reply to "Assange in Belmarsh"

    Well done on your attempts. Frustrating and seemingly futile to sit alone and write a letter into a vacuum - but these letters are very worthwhile for (a) documenting history (b) revealing replies or lack of replies (c) putting on notice that the case is being closely watched, by increasing numbers of people.

    A few quick responses to some of the points you received in reply.

    Reply from Your MP:

    -- she mentions the Swedish Prosecuting Authorities.
    Does she know that the Swedes dropped the case twice, no charges were ever laid at Assange's door.. and that an email later revealed that UK Crown Prosecution had asked the Swedes to hold the cases open ... not to get "cold feet" (sic)

    Ref: Sweden tried to drop charges in 2013, CPS emails show
    LINK https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-to-drop-assange-extradition-in-2013-cps-emails-show

    It's become clear that the Swedish case became a legal ('lawfare') key to keeping the Assange case in a holding-pattern limbo, for years, as La Reppublica journalist Stephania Maurizi often points out. (Maurizi has used FOIA requests to try and see all documents relating to case: she still awaits reply/relief from a UK court).


    -- MP says she has "utmost confidence in legal system".

    What does she have to say about Judge Arbuthnot showing no interest in recusing herself from the Assange case, even though her government-linked husband was exposed by Wikileaks cables? The judge has clear conflict of interest: she recused herself before in an Uber Taxi case, due to conflict of interest, so she's shown willingness before.
    This blatant conflict is obvious to lawyers around the world, who observe this case in increasing numbers.

    What does this say about UK Judiciary? Is this a good look for the UK Judiciary?

    Ref: The Coming Show trials of Julian Assange
    LINK https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/06/17/coming-show-trial-julian-assange

    --- - - - -

    Reply from Robert Buckland

    -- Belmarsh and Prisons PR talking points - no surprise there

    -- But the PR points are gainsaid by witness testimony from veteran journalist John Pilger, as well as by lawyer Jenifer Robinson who's said that she's "very afraid" (sic).

    -- Buckland mentions the possibility of "prison complaints".

    Does he acknowledge this: "[Assange] solicitor Gareth Peirce wrote to the governor of Belmarsh on the 4th of June about [..] and received no reply".

    Ref: Assange condition and treatment in Belmarsh
    https://citizenwells.com/2019/08/27/john-pilger-on-julian-assange-condition-and-treatment-in-belmarsh-prison-danger-that-we-will-lose-julian-treated-like-political-prisoner/

    -- Buckland mentions the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman... perhaps that's the next office to write to.

    -------

    Mandela Rules

    Are either the MP or Buckland aware of the Mandela Rules?

    Pilger reports Assange is still in solitary and not allowed to fraternise with passersby, though he told Pilger he would like to talk to others.

    The UK has already defied the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) and UN Special Rapporteur Nils Melzer's calls iro Assange.
    Is the UK also happy to defy the Mandela Rules - which it would surely hope apply to any British citizen jailed in a foreign country?

    ----
    UN Mandela Rules deals with the humane treatment of prisoners – including prison conditions, transportation and prisoner health. The Mandela Rules is the new, shorter title for Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Minimum_Rules_for_the_Treatment_of_Prisoners
    Previous Message

    'Mandela Rules' Relating to Solitary Confinement

    Rule 43

    1. In no circumstances may restrictions or disciplinary sanctions amount to
    torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The following
    practices, in particular, shall be prohibited:
    (a) Indefinite solitary confinement;
    (b) Prolonged solitary confinement;
    (c) Placement of a prisoner in a dark or constantly lit cell;
    (d) Corporal punishment or the reduction of a prisoner’s diet or drinking
    water;

    Message Thread: