SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Yellow ribbons with messages from supporters of Julian Assange are tied to the railings of the Royal Courts of Justice during an appeal hearing for his extradition to the United States on October 27, 2021 in London, England. (Photo: Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images)
UK Top Court Rejects Assange's Request to Appeal Extradition Decision
The decision represents "a blow to Julian Assange and to justice," said one human rights campaigner.
Mar 14, 2022
The U.K. Supreme Court on Monday denied WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's request to appeal an earlier decision permitting his extradition to the United States, where he faces espionage charges and up to 175 years in prison for publishing classified documents that exposed war crimes.
"The application does not raise an arguable point of law," the court declared.
Assange's supporters say that the case now goes before U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel to authorize the extradition.
The case has sparked global concern from press freedom and human rights groups who warn that prosecution of Assange would have far-reaching impacts on journalists and publishers who dare to challenge powerful governments by exposing their most closely-guarded secrets.
In a statement, Assange's solicitors lamented that the request for appeal was denied, saying that "the court had found that there was a real risk of prohibited treatment in the event of his onward extradition."
The legal team also said that they would be able to submit documents to Patel's office for the next four weeks ahead of her decision and that Assange could still appeal on other grounds.
The high court ruled in December that Assange can be extradited, overturning an earlier ruling by the Westminster Magistrates' Court that found extradition would endanger Assange's life.
In a January statement, Committee to Protect Journalists deputy executive director Robert Mahoney warned that "the prosecution of the WikiLeaks founder in the United States would set a deeply harmful legal precedent that would allow the prosecution of reporters for news gathering activities and must be stopped."
Mahoney, like other defenders of free speech and journalism, additionally called on the U.S. Justice Department to stop the extradition proceedings and drop its charges against Assange.
Responding to Monday's verdict, Amnesty International deputy research director for Europe Julia Hall said the decision represents "a blow to Julian Assange and to justice."
She also rejected as insufficient claims by U.S. officials that Assange's wellbeing would be safeguarded in American custody.
"The ban on torture and other ill-treatment is absolute and empty promises of fair treatment such as those offered by the USA in the Assange case threaten to profoundly undermine that international prohibition," she said.
"The refusal is also bad news for press freedom," said Hall, "since it leaves intact the nefarious route the U.S. has employed to attempt to prosecute publishers for espionage. Demanding that states like the U.K. extradite people for publishing classified information that is in the public interest sets a dangerous precedent and must be rejected. The U.S. should immediately drop the charges against Julian Assange."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The U.K. Supreme Court on Monday denied WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's request to appeal an earlier decision permitting his extradition to the United States, where he faces espionage charges and up to 175 years in prison for publishing classified documents that exposed war crimes.
"The application does not raise an arguable point of law," the court declared.
Assange's supporters say that the case now goes before U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel to authorize the extradition.
The case has sparked global concern from press freedom and human rights groups who warn that prosecution of Assange would have far-reaching impacts on journalists and publishers who dare to challenge powerful governments by exposing their most closely-guarded secrets.
In a statement, Assange's solicitors lamented that the request for appeal was denied, saying that "the court had found that there was a real risk of prohibited treatment in the event of his onward extradition."
The legal team also said that they would be able to submit documents to Patel's office for the next four weeks ahead of her decision and that Assange could still appeal on other grounds.
The high court ruled in December that Assange can be extradited, overturning an earlier ruling by the Westminster Magistrates' Court that found extradition would endanger Assange's life.
In a January statement, Committee to Protect Journalists deputy executive director Robert Mahoney warned that "the prosecution of the WikiLeaks founder in the United States would set a deeply harmful legal precedent that would allow the prosecution of reporters for news gathering activities and must be stopped."
Mahoney, like other defenders of free speech and journalism, additionally called on the U.S. Justice Department to stop the extradition proceedings and drop its charges against Assange.
Responding to Monday's verdict, Amnesty International deputy research director for Europe Julia Hall said the decision represents "a blow to Julian Assange and to justice."
She also rejected as insufficient claims by U.S. officials that Assange's wellbeing would be safeguarded in American custody.
"The ban on torture and other ill-treatment is absolute and empty promises of fair treatment such as those offered by the USA in the Assange case threaten to profoundly undermine that international prohibition," she said.
"The refusal is also bad news for press freedom," said Hall, "since it leaves intact the nefarious route the U.S. has employed to attempt to prosecute publishers for espionage. Demanding that states like the U.K. extradite people for publishing classified information that is in the public interest sets a dangerous precedent and must be rejected. The U.S. should immediately drop the charges against Julian Assange."
The U.K. Supreme Court on Monday denied WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's request to appeal an earlier decision permitting his extradition to the United States, where he faces espionage charges and up to 175 years in prison for publishing classified documents that exposed war crimes.
"The application does not raise an arguable point of law," the court declared.
Assange's supporters say that the case now goes before U.K. Home Secretary Priti Patel to authorize the extradition.
The case has sparked global concern from press freedom and human rights groups who warn that prosecution of Assange would have far-reaching impacts on journalists and publishers who dare to challenge powerful governments by exposing their most closely-guarded secrets.
In a statement, Assange's solicitors lamented that the request for appeal was denied, saying that "the court had found that there was a real risk of prohibited treatment in the event of his onward extradition."
The legal team also said that they would be able to submit documents to Patel's office for the next four weeks ahead of her decision and that Assange could still appeal on other grounds.
The high court ruled in December that Assange can be extradited, overturning an earlier ruling by the Westminster Magistrates' Court that found extradition would endanger Assange's life.
In a January statement, Committee to Protect Journalists deputy executive director Robert Mahoney warned that "the prosecution of the WikiLeaks founder in the United States would set a deeply harmful legal precedent that would allow the prosecution of reporters for news gathering activities and must be stopped."
Mahoney, like other defenders of free speech and journalism, additionally called on the U.S. Justice Department to stop the extradition proceedings and drop its charges against Assange.
Responding to Monday's verdict, Amnesty International deputy research director for Europe Julia Hall said the decision represents "a blow to Julian Assange and to justice."
She also rejected as insufficient claims by U.S. officials that Assange's wellbeing would be safeguarded in American custody.
"The ban on torture and other ill-treatment is absolute and empty promises of fair treatment such as those offered by the USA in the Assange case threaten to profoundly undermine that international prohibition," she said.
"The refusal is also bad news for press freedom," said Hall, "since it leaves intact the nefarious route the U.S. has employed to attempt to prosecute publishers for espionage. Demanding that states like the U.K. extradite people for publishing classified information that is in the public interest sets a dangerous precedent and must be rejected. The U.S. should immediately drop the charges against Julian Assange."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.