There were 13 visitor seats in the small courtroom #3, Westminster Magistrates, for this morning's administrative hearing. There is supposed to be such a hearing every 28 days apparently. To deal with 'administrative' issues in the remand of the prisoner. All seats were filled by warm committed people at least one of whom had been on vigil outside the embassy for 7 years. Someone who probably knew the agony of certain South American countries and what Julian had brought to light in that regard. But there was not a great turnout beyond these 13, perhaps because it was only administrative. Perhaps because it is the "day after", perhaps other reasons, I don't know. There was nobody I instantly recognized there.
This morning's 10 am hearing started late, Julian appeared on two wall-mounted LED monitors on either side of the courtroom. He looked tired, old, uncomfortable and distracted. Everything you have heard already. He was not at ease with the cuffs on his grey prison shirt, maybe they only uncuffed him immediately before he entered the video link room and his wrists were sore. He folded his arms once an put his head in his hands once. But mainly just rubbed his apparently sore wrists.
Everybody rose when Baraitser entered the courtroom then sat. Then the clerk said "Confirm your full name - Julian Paul Assange? .. Long silence then muffled "yes" ... Date of birth.. Then .... "Swedish national"? There was a gasp from everyone in the gallery. A long pause then "I am Australian".
The hearing was short and centered on verbal requests by his counsel ...
... Requests for access to Julian in order to prepare his defense. It started with Baraitser stating the purpose of the hearing (above), and that she was late because of an email regarding counsels request for access. She then made a statement "This court has no desire to stand in the way of any lawyer visiting his/her client. The concern is that this court has no jurisdiction over the prison service. This court feels it would be helpful to this extradition process if lawyer has access, but has no jurisdiction". She parsed her words extremely carefully, she had rehearsed in front of a mirror which may account for the lateness of the hearing.
Peirce then made a direct request that the judge contact the Belmarsh governor,to the effect that the prisoner be given access, since counsel's requests were being refused by Belmarsh governor. Apparently the governor had said that an exceptional visit can be made at the request of a jugde, and in receipt of a request from the court, the governor may respond.
The prosecutor was given a chance to respond, and declined to do so (said nothing throughout). So, in response, Baraitser then repeated the exact same statement as above, in exactly the same parsed, rehearsed manner, and then added that that she was making this statement in open court. In other words, covering her ass but doing nothing to help grant access. NOTE: This normally reflects *really* badly on a court if defendent is not given access to legal representation, and could lead to a mistrial but DESPITE THIS, she was willing to do NOTHING proactive to allow Julian access to counsel other than make a lofty, rehearsed statement then pass the buck along to the governor. This is how things work, folks.
At this point Peirce revealed she had done her homework: She mentioned a highly comparable extradition case in which the court HAD made a clear request TO THE SAME GOVERNOR that legal access be granted and in response it immediately was. They are writing a new rule book for Julian.
Peirce made it clear that Julian did not have any chance to review the summary or the full evidential document but she had persuaded a colleague to forfeit his videolink so that Peirce could review the evidence with Julian prior to the next hearing on Dec 19. Belmarsh had given the 18th for a visit, and Perice needed to prepare for the 19th with communication on the 18th, and the logistics of getting in and out of Belmarsh in person were nearly impossible. Is this videolink OK with the judge???
Judge: It is less important that the preliminary summary information reaches the client since the preliminary summary is predicated on underlying evidence that Julian has not yt reviewed. Here the judge was trying to, I think, even discourage this preliminary videolink on the 18th by presenting a circular argument that it is pointless to discuss a summary when Julian has not seen the full body of evidence.
That was pretty much the end of the hearing, but bottom line is that judge is not making necessary requests to Belmarsh governor for access to Julian by counsel, and is passing buck to Belmarsh governor. Playing for time, discouraging visits it will be too little too late in a script whose ending is known. It is so clumsy and obvious what is happening, not the subtlety we expect of the legal system from TV etc.
One of the 13 visitors remarked to me afterwards "I hope Julian dies before the US gets him".
All in all, seeing someone who single-handedly opened a brief window of freedom for us all, and had a stunning comprehension and ability to interpret and communicate, slow-motion executed in front of us was not a great day.