Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has won a bid to bring an appeal against his extradition to the United States at the High Court.
Assange faces prosecution in the US over an alleged conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information following the publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
During a two-day hearing in February, lawyers for the 52-year-old Australian asked for the go-ahead to challenge a previous judge’s dismissal of his case to prevent his extradition.
Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson dismissed most of Assange’s legal arguments but said that unless “satisfactory” assurances were given by the US, he would be able to bring an appeal on three grounds.
Those assurances were that Assange would be protected by and allowed to rely on the First Amendment protecting freedom of speech in the US, that he is not “prejudiced at trial” due to his nationality, and that the death penalty is not imposed.
At a hearing on Monday, the two judges granted permission to appeal over the freedom of speech and nationality points, meaning Assange will be able to bring the appeal.
This means Assange will now be able to bring an appeal at the High Court in London, with a date yet to be set.
Reporters Without Borders director of campaigns Rebecca Vincent said: “This is a very good outcome and a huge relief! It means the issues at the very heart of this case will get proper consideration by the UK courts.”
Protesters against Assange’s extradition gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice on Monday and clapped and cheered as news of the permitted appeal was announced.
Assange’s wife Stella Assange told the crowd: “Today marks a turning point. We went into court and we sat and heard the United States fumbling through their arguments, trying to paint lipstick on a pig.
“Well, the judges were not convinced. Everyone can see what is going on here. The United States’ case is offensive.
“It offends our democratic principles, it offends our right to know, it’s an attack on journalists everywhere.
“We are relieved as a family that the courts took the right decision today but how long can this go on for? Our eldest son just turned seven.
“All their memories of their father are in the visiting hall of Belmarsh prison, and as the case goes along, it becomes clearer and clearer to everyone that Julian is in prison for doing good journalism, for exposing corruption, for exposing the violations on innocent people in abusive wars for which there is impunity.”
National Union of Journalists general secretary Michelle Stanistreet said: “At this crucial juncture, this judgment serves as a positive step forward for Assange and for every journalist seeking to reveal truths through their reporting.
“With each passing day, the US government’s relentless pursuit contributes to Assange’s worsening health whilst displaying a disregard for practices adopted by journalists globally, during their investigative journalism.”
US lawyer: Assange’s conduct ‘simply unprotected’ by First Amendment
Lawyers on behalf of the US had said Assange’s bid to bring an appeal should be refused given the promises, provided in a note from the US embassy in London.
James Lewis KC said in written submissions that there is “no question” that Assange, if extradited “will be entitled to the full panoply of due process trial rights, including the right to raise, and seek to rely upon, the first amendment as a defence”.
However Edward Fitzgerald KC, for Assange, said: “This is not an assurance at all. It assures only that Mr Assange ‘may seek to’ raise the First Amendment.”
Lewis claimed Assange’s conduct was “simply unprotected” by the First Amendment.
He said: “The position of the US prosecutor is that no-one, neither US citizens nor foreign citizens, are entitled to rely on the First Amendment in relation to publication of illegally obtained national defence information giving the names of innocent sources to their grave and imminent risk of harm.”
He continued: “This principal applies equally to US citizens and non-US citizens irrespective of their nationality, or place of birth, and irrespective of where the conduct took place, though it is ultimately a question of law for the US courts. The conduct in question is simply unprotected by the First Amendment.
“There can be no ‘serious possibility’ of prejudice on the basis of nationality when the issue of nationality, or even citizenship, is not dispositive and may, in fact, never factor into a US court’s legal analysis.”
Of the nationality point, Lewis later told the court: “The assurance does make it clear that he will not be discriminated against because of his nationality.
“He can and will be able to raise all those arguments and his nationality will not prejudice a fair trial.”
Fitzgerald, for Assange, said most of the promises were “blatantly inadequate” but that they had accepted the promise about the death penalty.
Discussing the other points, the barrister said: “This assurance is not and cannot be a knockout. It cannot reassure the court that there is no risk.”
In written submissions, Fitzgerald said that while the assurance over the death penalty was “an unambiguous Executive promise”, the other assurance does not give “any reliable promise as to future action”.
The barrister added: “What needs to be conclusively removed is the risk that he will be prevented from relying on the First Amendment on grounds of nationality.”
In a January 2021 ruling, then-district judge Vanessa Baraitser said Assange should not be sent to the US, citing a real and “oppressive” risk of suicide, while ruling against him on all other issues.
Later that year, US authorities won their High Court bid to overturn this block, paving the way towards Assange’s extradition.
However, if ultimately successful with his appeal, Assange could avoid extradition, though a further appeal from the US would be likely.
Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog
