Mr Assange can appeal to the High Court if the judgement goes against him, and then further to the Supreme Court, and potentially the European Court of Human Rights. Any of those courts can block his extradition.
It seems too many people dislike the idea of human rights now, especially rights for "criminals".
So I wouldn't be surprised if the ECHR has no standing in the UK by the time Mr Assange could do with its services.
We, the UK, don’t decline extraditions on that basis - the prosecution has to be manifestly unjust in the sense of no real case to answer, or the destination has to literally be a banana republic.
Supporters may hate this, but it’s not actually what’s at issue at this point in the legal process.
Yeah, obviously “he’s going down” but not because of bias - he’s simply not exceptional (or motivationally pure) enough to be above the system.
The UK is required by the terms of the treaty to decline extradition on that basis. From the treaty,[1]
> extradition shall not be granted if the competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated.
There's no doubt about the political nature of the prosecution, so there's no doubt about what the outcome should be, unless there are extra-legal considerations at play in the decision. We're all watching the answer to the following question be played out in real time: "Will the UK extradite a person for politically motivated prosecution in the US, in flagrant violation of the UK-US extradition treaty?"
1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Moreover, Assange isn't even an American citizen, so that doesn't work either.
That being said, it is completely ridiculous to extradite an Australian for leaking US State secrets. It should just not be a thing, at all. So yes, leaking state secrets should not be an extraditeable offense. Treason? Maaaaybe.
But in any case if the US wants suspects extradited from western countries they should abolish the death sentence and stop torturing prisoners.
Personally I agree with that, but that doesn't impinge on the "politically motivate" crime issue, does it?
> "Fitzgerald [barrister for the defence] stated that all major authorities agreed there were two types of political offence. The pure political offence and the relative political offence. A 'pure' political offence was defined as treason, espionage or sedition. A 'relative' political offence was an act which was normally criminal, like assault or vandalism, conducted with a political motive. Every one of the charges against Assange was a “pure” political offence. All but one were espionage charges, and the computer misuse charge had been compared by the prosecution to breach of the official secrets act to meet the dual criminality test. The overriding accusation that Assange was seeking to harm the political and military interests of the United States was in the very definition of a political offence in all the authorities."
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Vanessa_Baraitser#Political_extr...
I believe a case can be made for both.
They are acting like a banana republic and this extradition request should be treated as such.
I wouldn't give her that much credit. She probably got the ruling already written from the US authorities.
That would be much more humane than dragging this farce out with endless legal purgatory before guaranteed solitary confinement for the rest of his life.
All for sharing proof of systematic illegal murder. It's sickening.