LONDON – A British judge ruled on Monday that Julian Assange cannot be extradited to the United States, guaranteeing the founder of WikiLeaks a great victory against the American authorities who accused him of plotting to hack government computers and violate the Espionage Act with the disclosure of confidential communications in 2010 and 2011.
Assange, 49, who was present at Monday’s hearing and wearing a face mask, was indicted in 2019 on 17 counts of violating the Espionage Law for his role in obtaining and publishing secret military and diplomatic documents, acts that may result in a sentence of up to 175 years in prison if he were found guilty of all charges. He was also charged with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, bringing the total number of charges to 18.
Judge Vanessa Baraitser of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court said in Monday’s decision that she was satisfied that the American authorities had presented the case “in good faith” and that Assange’s actions went beyond simply encouraging a journalist. But she said there is evidence of a health risk for Assange if he is tried in the United States, noting that she found “Mr. Assange’s risk of committing suicide, if an extradition order is issued, must be substantial. “
She determined that extradition should be refused because “it would be unjust and oppressive because of Mr. Assange’s mental condition and the high risk of suicide”, pointing to the conditions under which he was likely to be kept in the United States.
The decision on Monday at the Central Criminal Court in London, known as Old Bailey, was an important turning point in a legal struggle that has lasted for more than a decade. But that battle is likely to drag on for several months, as US prosecutors indicated they would appeal the decision. The authorities have two weeks to file an appeal.
A crowd of supporters gathered in front of the courthouse in central London burst into applause when the verdict was delivered on Monday.
“Today, we are delighted that Julian will be with us soon,” Craig Murray, a former British diplomat and rights activist who documented the hearing, told reporters outside the courtroom, noting that Assange’s defense team would be requesting bail while the appeal was in progress. He said that while he was “delighted to have seen some humanity”, the decision based on mental health was an “excuse to do justice”.
Human rights groups also applauded the denial of the extradition request, but some expressed concern about the content of the decision. Among them was Rebecca Vincent, director of international campaigns for Reporters Without Borders.
“We disagree with the judge’s assessment that this case is not politically motivated and is not about freedom of expression,” said Vincent outside the court. “We continue to believe that Mr. Assange has been the target of his contributions to journalism and, until the underlying issues here are addressed, other journalists, sources and editors remain at risk.”
Mr. Assange’s mother, Christine Assange, posted on Twitter that the lawsuit was sufficient punishment, and she urged the prosecution to withdraw its appeal.
Mr. Assange, who is Australian, gained prominence in 2010 by publishing documents provided by former US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. He then took refuge at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to escape extradition to Sweden, where he faced rape charges that were later dropped. In the meantime, he continued to administer WikiLeaks as a self-proclaimed political refugee. He spent several years there before his eventual arrest by the British police.
During the extradition hearing, which began in February but was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic, US lawyers argued that Assange had illegally obtained files of secret documents and that he had put lives at risk by revealing the names of people who provided information to the United States in dangerous places like war zones.
“Reporting or journalism is not an excuse for criminal activity or a license to violate common criminal laws,” James Lewis, a lawyer representing the United States government, told the court last year.
Assange’s lawyers framed the charge as a declared war against whistleblowers that could soon include journalists and editors.
“The biggest risk for him in the United States is not having to face a fair trial,” said Greg Barns, an Australian lawyer and an adviser to Assange. “Then he could spend the rest of his life in prison, in solitary confinement, treated in a cruel and arbitrary way.”
After the Justice Department announced a new indictment against Assange in June and extended the accusations that he had sought to recruit hackers to divulge confidential information, his lawyers tried to postpone the extradition hearing in Britain to prepare his defense, but his request was rejected.
The hearing was also hampered by several technical flaws and restricted access for observers, which human rights groups and legal experts said undermined the court’s credibility and undermined its ability to monitor proceedings.
Mr. Assange was detained in Belmarsh, a high security prison in London, where he served a 50-week sentence for jumping bail in 2012, when he entered the Ecuadorian Embassy. When asked during a September hearing whether he would consent to being extradited to the United States, Mr. Assange simply replied, “No”.
Many hailed Assange as a hero for the transparency that helped expose America’s mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he was also criticized as an advertising seeker with an erratic personality. WikiLeaks’ publication of emails associated with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, which American officials said was hacked by Russian intelligence to undermine her candidacy, also undermined her reputation with many previous supporters.
Mr. Assange was arrested in 2019 by the London Metropolitan Police after spending seven years in a room at the Embassy of Ecuador, where he held press conferences and where he received a parade of visitors, including singer Lady Gaga and actress Pamela Anderson . He also angered embassy officials for skating in the halls.
When he was dragged by the London police, Mr. Assange had become an unwanted guest at the embassy.
Weeks later, Assange was indicted on 17 counts of violating the Espionage Law for his role in soliciting, obtaining and publishing secret and diplomatic documents in 2010.
In commenting on the prosecution in May 2019, John C. Demers, the United States assistant attorney general for national security, said that the release of documents has made “stronger and more informed opponents and the United States less secure” .
With Assange in British prison, a United Nations expert warned that he had an alarming deterioration in his physical and mental state. Nils Melzer, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture and ill-treatment, said in November 2019 that the punishment against Assange amounted to “psychological torture”. In the same month, Sweden announced that it was ending its investigation into the rape charges against Assange.
But doctors said during the hearings that his condition had worsened.
“I can attest to the fact that his health has seriously deteriorated to the point that his life is now in danger,” Melzer said last month, while asking President Trump to forgive Assange.
News and press freedom organizations, as well as human rights groups, have long warned that Assange’s charge and a possible trial in the United States would set a dangerous precedent for press freedom.
“One of the main concerns is if he returns to the United States,” said Julia Hall, Amnesty International’s specialist in counterterrorism and criminal justice in Europe.
“The espionage charges indicate that he is being held in a maximum security prison, where conditions are dire,” added Hall. “For someone who has such a high profile, with special treatment and Covid procedures in prison, that would amount to torture and ill-treatment.”
Prosecutors never accused a journalist under the Espionage Law, but legal experts argued that prosecuting a reporter or news agency for doing his job – making valuable information available to the public – would violate the First Amendment. Assange’s actions remain difficult to distinguish in a legally meaningful way from those of traditional news organizations.
“It is impossible to exaggerate the dangerous precedent of Assange’s prosecution under the Espionage Law and possible extradition sets,” wrote Laura Poitras, the filmmaker and journalist who won the Pulitzer Prize for her report on the Security Agency’s mass surveillance program National, wrote in an Opinion Article in The New York Times last month.
Journalists who report confidential information can now face possible accusations under the Espionage Law, said Poitras, and the charge against Assange would pave the way for US officials to prosecute charges against other international journalists and editors.