United States Of America v Assange

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

United States Of America v. Assange

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an extradition request made by the Government of the United States of America ("the US") for the extradition of the Requested Person. The US request is governed by Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 ("the EA 2003"). The Secretary of State certified the request as valid in July 2020.

The procedural history in the US includes a criminal complaint issued in December 2017, an indictment in March 2018, a superseding indictment in May 2019, and a second superseding indictment in June 2020, all alleging offences related to the obtaining, receiving, and disclosure of classified information and computer intrusion. The US submitted a provisional arrest request and subsequent extradition requests based on these indictments.

In the UK, the Requested Person was initially subject to a European Arrest Warrant issued by a Swedish judicial authority in December 2010 for various offences. After arrest and contested proceedings, extradition to Sweden was ordered, but the Requested Person failed to surrender and subsequently entered the Embassy of Ecuador in London, where he remained for seven years. The Swedish prosecution was discontinued in 2017. The Requested Person was arrested at the embassy in April 2019, convicted of bail offences, and sentenced to 50 weeks imprisonment. Following the US extradition request, further proceedings were initiated in the UK. The evidential hearing took place in February and September 2020, with judgment reserved to January 2021. The Requested Person has been in custody since April 2019.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the UK-US Extradition Treaty prohibits extradition for a political offence and whether this court has jurisdiction.
Whether the allegations meet the "dual criminality" requirements under section 137 of the EA 2003.
Whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive due to the passage of time pursuant to section 82 EA 2003.
Whether extradition is barred by extraneous considerations pursuant to section 81(a) and (b) of the EA 2003.
Whether extradition would breach the European Convention on Human Rights ("the ECHR"), specifically Articles 3, 6, 7, and 10.
Whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive due to the Requested Person's mental condition and high risk of suicide pursuant to section 91 of the EA 2003.
Whether extradition would amount to an abuse of process based on misrepresentation of facts or ulterior political motives.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The defence submits that the UK-US Extradition Treaty prohibits extradition for political offences, and thus the court lacks jurisdiction.
They argue the allegations do not satisfy dual criminality as the conduct is protected investigative journalism under Article 10 of the ECHR.
Extradition would be unjust and oppressive due to the long passage of time and the impact on the Requested Person's ability to mount a defence.
They contend the extradition request is politically motivated, alleging executive interference and improper surveillance while the Requested Person was in the Ecuadorian embassy.
The defence raises human rights concerns, including risks to mental health and suicide risk if extradited.
They argue the prosecution is an abuse of process due to alleged misrepresentations and ulterior political motives.
The defence claims the Requested Person's conduct is lawful whistleblowing and protected journalistic activity.

Respondent's Arguments

The US submits that the EA 2003 provides a self-contained extradition regime which does not incorporate the political offence exception.
The US argues the conduct constitutes extradition offences under UK law, including conspiracy, computer misuse, and offences under the Official Secrets Acts 1911, 1920, and 1989.
The US denies the prosecution is politically motivated, asserting the charges are based on objective evidence of criminality and brought in good faith.
The US submits that the Requested Person's Article 10 rights do not protect unlawful conduct, including conspiracy to commit computer intrusion and disclosure of damaging classified information.
The US argues that the Requested Person will receive a fair trial in the US with procedural safeguards, including jury selection and protections against prejudicial statements.
The US acknowledges the possibility of restrictive detention conditions but submits appropriate mental health care and suicide prevention measures are in place.
The US denies any improper interference or pressure on prosecutors and rejects allegations of unlawful surveillance.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry [1990] 2 AC 418	Treaty provisions do not confer enforceable rights on individuals unless incorporated into domestic law.	The court held that the UK-US extradition treaty does not create enforceable rights for the Requested Person and cannot override domestic legislation.
R (Kashamu) v Governor of Brixton Prison [2002] QB 887	Lawfulness of detention under Article 5 ECHR depends on compliance with domestic law and Convention requirements.	The court applied this principle to reject the argument that breach of treaty terms renders detention unlawful.
Office of the King's Prosecutor (Brussels) v Cando Armas [2005] UKHL 67	Conduct is deemed to occur in the requesting territory if its effects are intentionally felt there.	The court found the conduct alleged occurred in the US as the effects of publication were felt there.
Tapin v USA [2012] EWCA 22 (Admin)	Interconnected conduct relating to the same criminal enterprise need not be separately demonstrated for extradition offences.	The court considered the charges as closely interconnected strands within a single criminal enterprise.
Regina v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11	Article 10 rights are qualified and do not provide a public interest defence to offences under the Official Secrets Act 1989.	The court held that the legislation was compatible with Article 10 and no public interest defence was available.
Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439	Extradition must not result in a flagrant denial of justice violating Article 6 ECHR.	The court applied the test and found no real risk of flagrant denial of justice in the US system for the Requested Person.
Babar Ahmad v United Kingdom (2010) 51 E.H.R.R	Plea bargaining is lawful and not inherently coercive under Article 6 ECHR.	The court accepted plea bargaining as a common feature of criminal justice systems.
Wojciech Wisniewski (and others) v Poland [2016] EWHC 386 (Admin)	Definition and treatment of a fugitive in extradition proceedings for purposes of passage of time bar.	The court applied the principle that delay caused by the Requested Person's fugitive status is discounted for delay purposes.
Loncar v County Court of Vukovar, Croatia [2015] EWHC 548 (Admin)	Abuse of process is a residual jurisdiction and need not be exercised if other bars to extradition are available.	The court declined to exercise abuse jurisdiction given the decision under section 91 EA 2003.
Zakrzewski v Regional Court in Lodz, Poland [2013] 1 WLR 324	The court may refuse extradition for abuse of process where particulars in the warrant are clearly wrong and materially misleading.	The court found no abuse of process as the defence merely disputed allegations, which are matters for trial.
R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] AC 323	Successful reliance on qualified rights in extradition requires a very strong case of flagrant denial or gross violation.	The court applied this high threshold in relation to Articles 7 and 10 ECHR claims.
Gîrleanu v Romania (2019) 68 EHRR 19	Journalists' Article 10 protections require good faith and responsible journalism.	The court considered the conduct of the Requested Person in light of responsible journalism principles.
Stoll v Switzerland (2008) 47 EHRR 59	Interference with freedom of expression may be justified if proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.	The court found no violation of Article 10 where conviction pursued legitimate aims with proportionality.
United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057	US Espionage Act provisions challenged for vagueness and overbreadth but upheld with limiting instructions.	The court explained how US courts interpret the Act to avoid unconstitutional applications.
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001)	First Amendment does not protect illegal acquisition or disclosure of information but may protect publication under certain conditions.	The court considered the limits of free speech protections relevant to the charges.
Brambilla and others v. Italy, application 22567/09	Journalists are not immune from criminal liability for offences committed during journalistic functions.	The court noted journalists have duties and responsibilities and no blanket immunity.
Welsh and another v Secretary of State [2006] EWHC 156 (Admin)	US sentencing practices including upward enhancement are legitimate and do not breach specialty obligations.	The court rejected arguments that US sentencing procedures should bar extradition.
R v Mullen [2000] QB 520	Prosecution procured by unlawful means may amount to abuse of process.	The court considered abuse of process principles in context of extradition.
Pomiechowski v District Court of Legnica, Poland [2012] 1 WLR 1604	Abuse of process can be a basis to challenge extradition proceedings.	The court noted the importance of preventing abuse of process in extradition.
R (European Roma Rights) v Prague Immigration Officer [2004] QB 811	Limitations on reliance on treaty provisions for abuse of process in extradition context.	The court rejected some treaty-based abuse of process arguments.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Brind [1991] 1 AC 696	Treaty provisions do not alter domestic law unless incorporated by statute.	The court applied this principle in extradition context.
Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109	Importance of security and confidentiality in intelligence services.	The court acknowledged legitimate restrictions on disclosure for national security.
Attorney General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268	Confidentiality obligations in intelligence contexts.	The court upheld restrictions on disclosure of classified information.
United States of America v Shlesinger [2013] EWHC 2671 (Admin)	Dual criminality is assessed solely on the basis of documents constituting the extradition request.	The court applied this principle to reject extraneous evidence for dual criminality analysis.
R v Governor of Pentonville Prison Ex p. Sinclair [1991] 2 AC 64	Incorporation of treaties into domestic law for extradition purposes.	The court noted treaties must be incorporated to affect domestic extradition law.
R (In Re Guisto) (FC) [2004] 1 AC 101	Incorporation of treaty terms into domestic law.	The court applied this principle in extradition context.
R (Bermingham and Others) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2007] QB 727	Abuse of process principles in prosecution.	The court considered abuse of process arguments.
R (Government of the USA) v Bow Street Magistrates' Court [2007] 1 WLR 1157 ("Tollman")	Abuse of process in extradition proceedings.	The court discussed abuse of process in extradition context.
R v Asfaw [2008] 1 AC 1061	Application of abuse of process in prosecution.	The court upheld abuse of process principles.
R v Uxbridge Magistrates Court, ex parte Adimi [2001] QB 667	Abuse of process for prosecution in breach of international protections.	The court found abuse of process but noted limitations in extradition context.
Stunt v Associated Newspapers [2018] 1 WLR 6060	Gathering of information is an essential preparatory step in journalism protected by Article 10.	The court acknowledged protected journalistic activities.
Tarsasag v Hungary (2011) 53 EHRR 3	Obstacles should not be created to the gathering of information.	The court recognized protections for information gathering.
Dyuldin & Kislov v Russia [2007] ECHR 685	Strong reasons required to justify restrictions on political speech.	The court emphasized protection for political speech.
Szurovecz v Hungary (2020) 70 EHRR 21	Restrictions that discourage media from pursuing matters of public interest may violate Article 10.	The court considered impact on media freedom.
Girleanu v Romania (2019) 68 EHRR 19	Interference with journalists' freedom of expression.	The court held that breach of law by journalists is relevant to responsible journalism.
United States v. Jimenez Recio, 537 U.S. 270 (2003)	Impossibility is not a defence to conspiracy charges.	The court noted impossibility does not negate conspiracy liability.
United States v. Min, 704 F.3d 314 (4th Cir. 2013)	Impossibility is not a defence to conspiracy charges.	The court reaffirmed the principle regarding conspiracy.
United States v. Rosen	Application of vagueness and overbreadth doctrines to Espionage Act provisions.	US courts interpret the statute narrowly to avoid unconstitutional applications.
United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057	Vagueness and overbreadth doctrines applied to Espionage Act.	The court upheld statute with limiting jury instructions.
Ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) [2000] 1 AC 147	Adaptability of extradition procedure to avoid discharge where part of conduct predates offence.	The court considered limiting scope of warrant to satisfy double criminality.
Ahmad & Ors. v UK (2012) 56 E.H.R.R. 1	Conditions of detention and impact on mental health in extradition context.	The court reviewed conditions at ADX Florence and found no Article 3 breach.
Lauri Love v United States of America (2018) EWHC 172	Risk of suicide and mental health considerations in extradition proceedings.	The court considered risk under section 91 EA 2003 and found no need to consider Article 3 separately.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the political offence bar under the UK-US Extradition Treaty, concluding that the treaty does not confer enforceable rights on the Requested Person absent incorporation into domestic law. The Extradition Act 2003 abolished the political offence exception, and the court is bound to apply domestic legislation rather than treaty provisions. Accordingly, the court rejected the argument that the request was barred as political or an abuse of process on this basis.

On dual criminality, the court found that the conduct alleged would constitute offences under the law of England and Wales, including conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, offences under the Official Secrets Acts 1911, 1920, and 1989, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. The court divided the charges into three strands: conspiracy with the whistleblower and hackers to commit computer intrusion; aiding and abetting unlawful obtaining and disclosure of classified information; and publishing documents containing names of informants. The court rejected the defence argument that journalistic activities are protected under Article 10 to the extent alleged, holding that the Requested Person's conduct went beyond protected journalism and included unlawful acts.

The court considered the bars to extradition under sections 81 and 82 EA 2003. It rejected claims that the prosecution was politically motivated or brought in bad faith, finding insufficient evidence of improper pressure or interference. The court found the Requested Person to have been a fugitive since 2012 and that the delay in prosecution was not culpable given the complexity of the investigation and the Requested Person's conduct in avoiding arrest. Accordingly, the passage of time did not bar extradition.

Human rights challenges under Articles 6, 7, and 10 ECHR were considered. The court found no real risk of flagrant denial of justice under Article 6, noting procedural safeguards in the US including jury selection, impartial trial guarantees, and the ability to challenge evidence. The court found no basis for a flagrant denial of Article 7 rights, accepting that US constitutional protections, including the Fifth Amendment, would apply. Regarding Article 10, the court acknowledged freedom of expression is qualified and that the law criminalises conduct that is damaging and unlawful. It noted that the Requested Person’s prosecution does not nullify Article 10 rights as it targets unlawful conduct beyond protected journalism.

On health grounds under section 91 EA 2003, the court received extensive psychiatric evidence. Defence experts diagnosed the Requested Person with recurrent severe depressive disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and a substantial risk of suicide if extradited, especially given the likelihood of restrictive detention conditions including Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) and administrative segregation. The court found that the Requested Person’s mental condition was such that extradition would be unjust or oppressive due to the high risk of suicide that would likely occur despite any preventive measures. The court noted that the US Bureau of Prisons provides mental health care but accepted the defence evidence that the harsh conditions and isolation would exacerbate the risk. This finding rendered consideration of Article 3 ECHR unnecessary.

Finally, the court considered abuse of process arguments based on alleged misstatements in the extradition request and late additions to the indictment. It found these to be matters for trial and not proper grounds to stay extradition. The court noted the defence declined an adjournment to prepare for the new allegations and rejected the application to excise them.

Holding and Implications

DISCHARGE ORDERED

The court ordered the discharge of the Requested Person pursuant to section 91(3) of the EA 2003 on the grounds that extradition would be unjust or oppressive due to the Requested Person’s physical or mental condition, specifically the substantial risk of suicide if extradited. This decision directly affects the parties by preventing extradition at this stage. The court did not set any new legal precedent, instead applying established legal principles and statutory tests, particularly on health grounds. Other challenges to extradition, including political offence bar, abuse of process, and human rights claims under Articles 6, 7, and 10 ECHR, were rejected. The ruling underscores the high threshold required to bar extradition on health grounds and confirms the court’s deference to domestic extradition legislation over treaty provisions not incorporated into UK law.