Hacker News Reader

Comment by henearkr | Hacker News Reader

Wow. Again, the contents of the discussions are so obviously in favor of Assange (the accusation being really unfair and... dumb, again and again), and the judge is so clearly in favor of this dumb side.

What would be the possible recourse against the verdict, to protest to all these (voluntary) mistakes?

Is there any court in UK to which ask to undo and rejudge?

The accusation (Lewis) is so manipulative, asking witnesses to agree to assertions out of context and then applying them anywhere, sending them bundles of documents to read urgently the same morning as the trial and then blaming them for not having been able to do it, denying the qualification of all witnesses and experts altogether, etc.

The accusation is a representative of a Nation governed by the Rule of Law, isn't it?

And what about the judge who is very happy with all these cruel manipulations?

View on HN

> What would be the possible recourse against the verdict, to protest to all these (voluntary) mistakes?

> Is there any court in UK to which ask to undo and rejudge?

Yes. All extradition judgements may be appealed to the High Court of England and Wales (or, where relevant, the equivalent in Scotland).

However, such appeals may only be made on a point of law, not fact. For example, the judge misapplying the law is a point of law so the appeal can be heard.

However, a rebuttal of fact (e.g. "Mr Assange did not commit the crime he was accused of") would be a point of fact and thus such an appeal could not be heard.

Furthermore, if the High Court refuses to hear the appeal or decides against Mr Assange, it can be sent to the Supreme Court.

The final route of appeal would lie with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) if his legal team can prove an Article 3 breach.

Assuming Mr Assange loses the case, his team would probably apply for an urgent injunction to the High Court to temporarily prevent him from being extradited during the appeal, then apply for an expedited hearing so his case is heard as quickly as possible.

Thanks a lot!

I see many points of law on the base of which an appeal would win.

For example, forcing witnesses to say a statement, and then writing it down out of its context, sending essential (as it appears during the trial) documents to witnesses or experts in a timing such that they cannot read them, wrong characterization of medical notions with the aim to induce confusion, etc.

In total, there are easily 20 or more points which would have this trial totally moot if it was held in France for example, and I'm sure that UK's version of justice is not that different.

Perhaps. It is arguable that Mr Assange is not receiving a fair trial in the procedural sense of the word. The appeal court would be entitled to quash the verdict or remand it for reconsideration.

Given previous precedent such as the Gary McKinnon case, I rather hope the High Court would quash the verdict and prevent Mr Assange's extradition.

What about procedural issues such as the bundles of documents in the morning?

That's poor conduct from the prosecution, and does contribute to any appeal grounds on the basis of procedural unfairness, but in itself is not a point of law.

The High Court may well write scathing remarks about the prosecution's conduct, but I'd be surprised if any substantive action were taken given that the prosecuting counsel represents a foreign government and the courts are loathe to intrude upon foreign affairs.

Well, since observers from Amnesty International were denied a place in the hearing and the press largely ignores this, we'll have to do with Craig Murray.

Are you suggesting the reports are biased?

Craig Murray admitted that his position on the whole affair is indeed biased, but that he would try to report the facts fairly.

I think he is doing a good job of that, though of course, how can we really know?

Please name an alternate source of complete, detailed, factual reporting of this "public" hearing.

The fact that you (or anyone) probably cannot, says quite a lot in itself.

I'm surprised that my comment could be interpreted in such a way! lol

(but the other comment by jonathanstrange hints that you are not alone, so maybe my writing style could use some improvement)

To the contrary, even so I'm sure that Murray is on Assage's side, he still manages to write a factual report.

To his honor, it is quite easy to make the distinction between the facts reported and Murray's opinion.

And it's based on the facts only (as included in the reports written by Murray) that I'm myself horrified by how the trial is unfair and full of procedural mistakes against Assange.

You're right, I did misread, apologies.

I think you've misinterpreted the parent comment. They are complaining about the people conducting the case.

"Suddenly, Baraitser repeated out loud the part quote that if prison conditions in the US were good and the sentence were short, then Kopelman’s clinical opinion would change, and ostentatiously typed it onto her laptop, as though it were very significant indeed."

This is not the work of a dispassionate observer.

He does not claim to be dispassionate, only to relay the facts.

As above, please name a 'fairer' source.

You probably cannot, because this is not an impartial, and certainly not 'public', process.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com