Assange Hearing Day 3
craigmurray.org.uk
craigmurray.org.uk
> Yes, she really did say that. Group 4 would have to decide.
Presumably that refers to G4S (nee Group 4), the private security company that the UK Government are increasingly farming work out too?
i.e. the company who are embroiled in a series of scandals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_G4S
It is therefore quite concerning that a justice-based decision (a prisoner sitting by their lawyers and being able to speak to them as normal) is down to a for-profit private company.
I know that's just the tip of the iceberg, but still concerning to be reminded of it.
Which isn't to say you shouldn't be outraged, but you should probably be outraged about a sixteen year old black kid being brought up for possession as well. He's not high profile enough to get a star lawyer determined to enumerate the problems with his treatment.
pointing out such inconsistency is an excellent way to dilute and dissolve outrage. Most people don't see such cases, they see this one because it's so high-profile/novel; If this is the breakthrough case that starts people talking it will benefit everyone.
(Equally, wait until you find out exactly how limited the grounds are to refuse an extradition to America. And the fact that America refuses to allow symmetric rules. And the fact that Britain went along with this...)
That speech from "Love Actually" could be recycled usefully here.
How would I expect this to be handled? I would expect the court to say what they want and for G4S (who serve the court) to accommodate that.
When you book a security firm, surely you give them details about what you want them to do. They may advise you, but you decide.
That's what we expect. And when it comes to court systems the appointed representative in positions of authority should decide what's required of hired help.
that is ridiculous. How is he dangerous?
We're talking about whether he has to sit in a bulletproof box, or next to his lawyers like any other accused person. Your argument against this is that he's "dangerous" because he released unredacted documents (a disputed version of events, by the way). I don't follow the logic here, can you explain?
This claim has been refuted (by the US gov).
> Baraitser started to throw out jargon like a Dalek when it spins out of control.
> He looked at her like a kindly uncle whose favourite niece has just started drinking tequila from the bottle at a family party.
In fact some of these comments are really quite disturbing. If I were responsible for being the judge at the extradition hearing of Julian Assange I wouldn't want my picture out in public either. Let's not pretend like there isn't a real threat that one of the loony conspiracy theorists that follow Assange wouldn't take matters in to their own hands.
> Being angry at the public at random must be very stressful for her. I suspect she shouts a lot on trains.
I know this guy thinks the legal case is going to be lost so wants to tarnish the reputation of the people he disagrees with, but could someone volunteer step forward and explain why this sort of bollocks makes them think lower of the judge rather than just thinking badly of the author?
That might not necessarily be what you want to hear but: Because I ignore the bollocks. Conspiracy theorist or not, the author seems to at least have an informed point of view, where his reporting is factual it seems to reflect reporting in e.g. the corresponding Guardian articles. Where it's not I either ignore it because it's unnecessary ramblings or see it as interesting tidbits dry reporting of other outlets leave out. The part you specifically point out for example, I had a laugh at that and went on with my life. I'm not reflecting much bad on that particular judge for that part but took it as a, in my view, rather ridiculous aspect of this proceeding (without too much judgement of whether that is normal or not, I wouldn't know).
I knew nothing about this person 4 days ago, 3 days ago I learned that he was one of only 16 people (as per his first article in the series) to actually bother enough and manage to get one of the seats for the public. He clearly puts effort in and I for one enjoy his writing style. That doesn't mean I'll stop reading regular news but it certainly makes me come back when he publishes his piece on the next court date.
> Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever.
If the system is so opaque, what mechanism exists to protect against a judge who does whatever they want? If the judge is truly using some kind of apparent word salad to justify arbitrary decisions which don't pass a basic test of reasoning, doesn't this effectively mean that a judge can do this anytime without consequences?
I don't believe you can get these in real time. You can apply for them afterwards, or you can go and listen for yourself, as this person did.
In the UK we generally don't go in for blow-by-blow realtime reporting of court cases, like they do in the US.
> doesn't this effectively mean that a judge can do this anytime without consequences?
Judges in the UK are appointed professionals - they aren't elected as in many places in the US, so they aren't pursuing an agenda or appealing to an electorate. Judges going rogue isn't a problem in practice.
I think in this very case the judge clearly IS pursuing an agenda. It may be a government-approved agenda, but it is clearly an agenda separate from the even-handed pursuit of justice.
If the transcript exists it ought to be made available quickly to the public. If it's a matter of fees, there ought to be a way of paying in advance for the transcript for a particular day, unless I'm missing something that's unique to the transcription process that makes it less feasible than I'm imagining it to be.
Federal Judges are appointed and about 90% of state judges are elected. There have only been 2 Federal judges that have been impeached since 1989.
So: In 18 US states, the courts are entirely captured by party politics, but in the other states there's at least thin pretence that this isn't the case? Hooray for US justice. /s
Also when you say "Federal judges are appointed" you forgot to say "By politicians". Unsurprisingly the British system doesn't let politicians (who will be judged like anyone else) pick the judges, it has independent Commissions† for this purpose, just as it does for deciding electoral boundaries.
And that's how the US went many months without a functioning Supreme Court, so that a political party could ensure their party preference overrode any other consideration, and today the Trump administration basically just dictates to its five tame Justices what the US Constitution "really" always meant which just coincidentally is whatever Trump wants it to mean today. Nice "justice" you've got there, hope your life is never on the line.
† The JAC (which picks most judges including this one) is a mix of existing judges, independent lay people and non-judge lawyers or law experts. It was told to pick people on merit, but only those with "good character" and that it should try to reflect Britain's diversity (so e.g. not replace all the old white male judges with more old white male judges). It appears to work pretty well.
Because you generally don't need to be re-appointed. You generally do need to be re-elected.
In order to be re-elected you need to please the electorate, rather than do the 'right thing' (whatever that is.)
This can create a conflict of interest, such as judges prioritising 'being tough on crime' over the facts of cases.
I completely understand your point. One thing I will ad is with elections you can change your mind over time. With an appointee you are stuck with their views for an unknown amount of time usually until they retire or die.
That seems like basically an extension of election then, as you're electing someone who then appoints someone from their party.
Judges in the UK (source of this article) are never part of a party - they're politically neutral.
Judges in the Supreme Court aren't even allowed to vote in normal elections themeselves (they're lords.)
All current Supreme Court justices have a peerage, but in principle a disapproving Government could just tell Liz not to give them a peerage and they wouldn't get one. Whereas all the elected Government can do about a choice of new Justice itself is say "No" and ask the committee to pick again, the committee isn't obliged to do anything except pick the same person again - which would be a very pointed rebuke. So far of course no government has done that but the UK Supreme Court is young and these are interesting times.
Right, that's what I meant, they are all in practice peers.
> a disapproving Government could just tell Liz not to give them a peerage and they wouldn't get one
I think they can only advise the Crown, not tell her what to do.
The main thing you get when personally ennobled is you get to be in the House of Lords, and Parliament (which includes the House of Lords) decided it gets to choose how that works for itself, it changed the rules last century to stop giving out peerages that survive and can be inherited. Now (other than titles like "Prince of Wales" for royalty that don't come with the ability to sit in Parliament) all new peerages extinguish upon death.
At the time the question was asked: Can Liz just make new peerages anyway? And the answer was that Liz can say "This person is a Duke now" and lo, now they're named Duke So-and-such, but whereas a Duke created by the normal process would get to sit in the Lords (and thus is in Parliament) this Duke would not get to do that.
Since Britain doesn't have any rules forbidding you from taking any name you please (so long as you don't use it to defraud people), this power is useless. You can already name yourself Duke So-and-such without Liz's help.
All current Supreme Court justices were drawn from the Law Lords and as a consequence of being Lords cannot vote for MPs. However, so far as I am aware, there's no requirement for a Supreme Court justice to be a Lord and thus no guarantee that any future Supreme court justice will be unable to vote for MPs.
What we may be witnessing, however, is more unspoken convention being established (that Supreme Court justices are made peers on appointment or shortly thereafter).
All that said, the UK Civil Service has a policy of neutrality. Civil servants are divided into junior and senior, depending on the role (not on age or length of service). Junior civil servants are discouraged from political commentary and being "card-carrying" party members and in particular holding any office in a political party. Senior civil servants are outright forbidden to be officers of political parties and any kind of public expression of views is also strictly forbidden.
This is because unlike the US, where the administration changes with the incoming party, the civil service remains unchanged and simply serves the incoming government.
The Judiciary in the UK are not technically civil servants, they're subject to similar restrictions. You can find the evidence of that here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Guide-to..., specifically: "There is a statutory prohibition on salaried judges undertaking any kind of political activity or having ties with a political party". This extends to public demonstrations of any kind, and further extends to spouses of judges and close relatives as well.
So, even if a future Supreme Court Justice is not a lord, having any kind of political view that is publicly known is unlikely to be compatible with their appointment. This extends to judges. Unless the judge is a lord (and so restricted from appointing to the commons) they are allowed their own private views, and of course may vote (the same is true of the civil service) - but their public conduct is held to a standard of impartiality.
For further information, see this article https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/mar/28/select-committee... on rejecting confirmation hearings by parliament and Lady Hale's speech on standing down as the head of the Supreme Court after the brexit/impartiality mess: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/dec/18/lady-hale-warns-... . Lady Hale also did a fantastic interview on the BBC regarding the functioning of the Supreme Court, and it's really worth listening to: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07nkz4j
>> a disapproving Government could just tell Liz not to give them a peerage and they wouldn't get one
> I think they can only advise the Crown, not tell her what to do.
I should address this while I'm here. The Queen always acts on advice from ministers, even when that advice was illegal (see brexit) and even if she suspects it to be so. This is because the Queen strictly does not interfere with politics, ever (in private, she may however call the Prime Minister an utter moron, to his or her face, repeatedly for the duration of their weekly meeting, if she so chose. It's also legally required for ministers to inform her of what is going on in government, hence the despatch boxes).
As above, I'm not sure the requirement for being a Lord will necessarily hold for the Supreme Court. It does not appear to be in the legislation. The process is detailed on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_o... and involves the Judiciary selecting a candidate and passing that name to the prime minister, who is legally required to pass that name on to the Queen.
The most the political part of this process can do is ask for reconsideration. The judiciary may then submit a different name, or submit the same name again. In the event they do the latter it must be accepted. In the event they do the former, the Lord Chancellor may still chose the first name.
In summary: in the UK system, judges are far more independent of politics than in the US system.
If their views impact their judgement it will be overruled and they can be disbarred.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/15/constance-br...
Your question is like asking is it better to appoint rocket scientist from a pool of professors of rocket science, via a skill based appointment system, or via a popularity competition that the public vote on.
Usually a higher court or the court of appeal, the latter of which you can appear before an unlimited number of times if you have grounds. Both have mechanisms for urgent hearings.
Judges can also be struck off for misconduct, which happens from time to time
Just to add though, this is not a judge, this is a magistrate, who take legal advice but are not legally qualified like a judge is.
She is (or was at the last time they updated their lists) a "District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)" which means ordinarily (this case is anything but ordinary) she would not be assigned to a Crown Court but would work alongside Magistrates in their court. Unlike them she can sit on her own (as she does here) deciding things for herself.
It says in some online articles that she is a district judge - is that the same thing as a magistrate?
It seems unusual for an international case involving an Australian citizen, the UK crown and the US government to be at the mercy of someone who is not qualified at the highest level to make decisions and adjudicate the matter.
At the other extreme there are "Indictable offences" like murder or rape. These are heard by a Judge and jury, guilt is decided by the jury and the sentence is only limited constitutionally (e.g. "life without possibility of parole" is prohibited as a sentence for any crime, except that it can be imposed for multiple independently conceived crimes of murder)
In the middle is an overlap "Tried either way". This means the Prosecutors can decide e.g. "This was very serious, we need a Judge to impose the harsh sentence we'll request" or "This seems pretty routine, let magistrates handle it". If the magistrates disagree (they meet only as panels of three) they can send the case to a judge for a harsher sentence whereas a judge doesn't need to send cases down to magistrates they can just impose a lesser sentence themselves.
Here's what they have for Assange's previous cases: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/?filter_type=judgment&sea...
Some other cases will be pushed to the charitable organisation BAILII, who'll do any necessary anonymisation, apply a standard format, and put them up on the web. https://www.bailii.org/
Here's the BAILII search for Assange: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/lucy_search_1.cgi?highlight=1...
But in general, no, we don't have full transcripts easily available and nothing apart from court reporting is available in real time.
The collapse of journalism as a career, especially local journalism (maybe this is just a UK thing?) means a lot of court reporting just doesn't happen any more, which is a bit worrying.
[1] If anyone's looking for a project something that scrapes that data and makes it easier to search and pull out themes would be welcomed by many people in England. It's a shame that this important learning is locked up in PDFs that are hard to find and use.
I think that is the appropriate link. In general you can pay to get a copy of any transcribed court proceeding assuming the court approves. Some small hearings are not transcribed (eg magistrates) so are not available. Records are only kept for a few years?
Not to be that guy; but, I think you need a comma in there: "No, records are kept forever" or just remove "no." Maybe it was just me; but, I read that sentence as saying records were not kept forever.
Court records need to be kept, since they can provide precedent.
≥ she appears to be the only public figure in Western Europe with no photo on the internet. Indeed the average proprietor of a rural car wash has left more evidence of their existence and life history on the internet than Vanessa Baraitser. Which is no crime on her part, but I suspect the expunging is not achieved without considerable effort
Likely something more people should strive for
I envy the judge and others who can pull this feat off.
The IETF began using coloured lanyards, if you picked the special colour this was a signal to not record your presence at the in-person event where practical. When they first began doing this somebody key (maybe a Working Group chair or Area Director? Anyway someone who'd obviously be on camera all the time so that not recording them is hopeless) picked that colour because they liked it, and then only realised later why everybody was freaking out. Amusing.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ERxqKg1XsAEctQm?format=jpg&name=...
This is a blatant intellectually dishonest character assasination attempt.
Probably helpful to mention he was a former overseas Ambassador for the UK too? Surely that carries some weight in the world of online conspiracy discourse we are having here?
Not saying he's right, simply saying he's the type of guy who was at the forefront of where real conspiracies happen. Have no actual opinion on the matter and don't know anything about it. It could be pure rambling for all I know.
That said, look at all the people who were criticised for knowing the truth before Snowden, before MKUltra, before Iran-Contra. It's a fine line to draw here.
To pretend that this world doesn't have some funny things going on all the time behind the scenes is either willfully ignorant or...
I'm not sure I'd call him a conspiracy theorist for this, isn't it normal that the public aren't told the true progression of events for "Spy" stuff?
>As the MSM never questions the official narrative, there has never been an official answer as to how the gel got from the doorknob to the roof.
In 1 second of Googling:
>Speaking to BBC Radio Wiltshire, Alistair Cunningham, the chair of the recovery coordination group, said: "the whole house had to be searched, including the roof space.
>We want to be sure no contamination was taken from the door into the roof space.
>It's a timber structure and when it comes to wood it's more difficult to clean. It's easier to remove."
And that's just a random paragraph I pulled out of the middle of dozens of claims he makes.
You need to actually read what he says and then relate what he claims people are lying to you about and what people are actually saying.
The court/prison site is not on a marsh, it is not an island. It is situated in a residential neighbourhood of London, about 15km from the city centre. There are three bus lines stopping at the front entrance.
Murray tries to take us for a ride. Insert "don't-believe-his-lies polaroid" meme here.