US govt scores a point against Assange in run-up to extradition appeal showdown

Judge wrong to prevent Uncle Sam from challenging psychiatrist's suicide risk report, says High Court


Analysis Julian Assange has lost a legal scrap in court, this time over the US government's attempt to expand its grounds for extraditing him from England to stand trial in America.

Uncle Sam is ultimately hoping to overturn a decision made in January blocking Assange's extradition on mental health grounds.

Lord Justice Holroyde, sitting with Mrs Justice Farbey in London's High Court, this week overruled previous legal findings that said an expert report from Assange's psychiatrist claiming the WikiLeaker was suicidal at the prospect of trial in the United States could not be challenged on appeal. That decision, made after a pre-hearing application by the US government ahead of a full appeal scheduled later this year, is bad news for Assange's camp.

Back in January, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser accepted Professor Michael Kopelman's view that Assange was likely to take his own life if extradited, describing that as "a well-informed opinion carefully supported by evidence and explained over two detailed reports."

And now Lord Justice Holroyde and Mrs Justice Farbey have granted a US application to challenge the inclusion of Kopelman's reports as legally sound evidence. Kopelman had initially concealed the fact that Assange had secretly fathered two children with a supporter of the WikiLeaks chief. Expert witnesses are supposed to be impartial, even though they're being paid by one side in a contested legal proceeding.

Judge Baraitser, ruled the High Court, was wrong to say Kopelman's decision to hide Assange's fatherhood was "an understandable human response" to Assange's partner Stella Moris' desire for privacy. As a result, the King's College London professor's report can be challenged during the main US appeal, the court found. It is one of the very few things currently standing between the Australian and a one-way ticket to the US.

"Given the importance to the administration of justice of a court being able to reply on the impartiality of an expert witness," the The Times reported Lord Justice Holroyde saying, "it is in my view arguable that more detailed and critical consideration should have been given to why [the professor’s] ‘understandable human response’ gave rise to a misleading report."

Clair Dobbin QC, barrister for the US government, told the High Court that Judge Baraitser's decision was flawed because she had accepted Kopelman's reports. For Assange, Edward Fitzgerald QC (last seen on El Reg successfully keeping Lauri Love from being extradited to America) said the earlier decision was fine and didn't need revisiting. Fitzgerald's written arguments can be viewed on an Assange supporters' blog, here.

Assange is wanted for trial by the Americans on allegations he colluded with ex-US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning in an attempt to crack hashed passwords for the Pentagon's SIPRnet; see the large bolded paragraph from previous reporting for details.

News reports from this week's hearing said there were a total of five grounds of appeal now being pursued by the US, of which the acceptance of Kopelman's report was one. The other four were not explained and appear to be being kept secret by both the Crown Prosecution Service (which acts for foreign governments in UK extradition cases) and Assange's legal team. The Register is attempting to view copies of relevant court papers so we can fully report legal arguments from both sides.

The full appeal is scheduled to be heard at the High Court on October 27 and 28 this year. In the meantime, the UK's Home Secretary Priti Patel has rubber-stamped Assange's extradition. ®


Other stories you might like

  • GPL legal battle: Vizio told by judge it will have to answer breach-of-contract claims
    Fine-print crucially deemed contractual agreement as well as copyright license in smartTV source-code case

    The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) has won a significant legal victory in its ongoing effort to force Vizio to publish the source code of its SmartCast TV software, which is said to contain GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 copyleft-licensed components.

    SFC sued Vizio, claiming it was in breach of contract by failing to obey the terms of the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 licenses that require source code to be made public when certain conditions are met, and sought declaratory relief on behalf of Vizio TV owners. SFC wanted its breach-of-contract arguments to be heard by the Orange County Superior Court in California, though Vizio kicked the matter up to the district court level in central California where it hoped to avoid the contract issue and defend its corner using just federal copyright law.

    On Friday, Federal District Judge Josephine Staton sided with SFC and granted its motion to send its lawsuit back to superior court. To do so, Judge Staton had to decide whether or not the federal Copyright Act preempted the SFC's breach-of-contract allegations; in the end, she decided it didn't.

    Continue reading
  • US brings first-of-its-kind criminal charges of Bitcoin-based sanctions-busting
    Citizen allegedly moved $10m-plus in BTC into banned nation

    US prosecutors have accused an American citizen of illegally funneling more than $10 million in Bitcoin into an economically sanctioned country.

    It's said the resulting criminal charges of sanctions busting through the use of cryptocurrency are the first of their kind to be brought in the US.

    Under the United States' International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEA), it is illegal for a citizen or institution within the US to transfer funds, directly or indirectly, to a sanctioned country, such as Iran, Cuba, North Korea, or Russia. If there is evidence the IEEA was willfully violated, a criminal case should follow. If an individual or financial exchange was unwittingly involved in evading sanctions, they may be subject to civil action. 

    Continue reading
  • Meta hires network chip guru from Intel: What does this mean for future silicon?
    Why be a customer when you can develop your own custom semiconductors

    Analysis Here's something that should raise eyebrows in the datacenter world: Facebook parent company Meta has hired a veteran networking chip engineer from Intel to lead silicon design efforts in the internet giant's infrastructure hardware engineering group.

    Jon Dama started as director of silicon in May for Meta's infrastructure hardware group, a role that has him "responsible for several design teams innovating the datacenter for scale," according to his LinkedIn profile. In a blurb, Dama indicated that a team is already in place at Meta, and he hopes to "scale the next several doublings of data processing" with them.

    Though we couldn't confirm it, we think it's likely that Dama is reporting to Alexis Bjorlin, Meta's vice president of infrastructure hardware who previously worked with Dama when she was general manager of Intel's Connectivity group before serving a two-year stint at Broadcom.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022