USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

Reading the judgement the key points are on pages 116 onwards and the extradition is denied under section 91(3) of the EA 2003 which reads:

> The condition is that the physical or mental condition of the person is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him.

The judge states:

> it is my judgment that there is a real risk that he will be kept in the near isolated conditions imposed by the harshest SAMs (special administrative measures) regime, both pre-trial and post-trial

And goes on to contrast with the conditions at HMP Belmarsh:

> many of the protective factors currently in place at HMP Belmarsh would be removed by these conditions. Mr. Assange’s health improved on being removed from relative isolation in healthcare. He has been able to access the support of family and friends. He has had access to a Samaritans phone line. He has benefited from a trusting relationship with the prison In-Reach psychologist. By contrast, a SAMs regime would severely restrict his contact with all other human beings, including other prisoners, staff and his family. In detention subject to SAMs, he would have absolutely no communication with other prisoners, even through the walls of his cell, and time out of his cell would be spent alone.

These conditions sound barbaric to me and I'd go as far to describe them as torture. Amnesty International do a better job of outlining the problems with this regime than I can: https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/entombed-isolation-in-the...

Frankly I don't understand why the UK continues to maintain an extradition treaty with a country which clearly has a poor record on human rights and fails to maintain a justice system that meets the UN's Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

She concludes:

> I am satisfied that, in these harsh conditions, Mr. Assange’s mental health would deteriorate causing him to commit suicide with the “single minded determination” of his autism spectrum disorder.

> I order the discharge of Julian Paul Assange, pursuant to section 91(3) of the EA 2003

Whilst a victory nonetheless for Assange, it is unfortunate that the entire judgement seems to come down to this point alone. Let's hope it is not overturned.

If Hillary Clinton gets a role under Biden, then probably not.

That seems like the line of argument you could employ to deny every extradition to the US then. I might be overly cynical but that seems to be little more than a ploy of appearing impartial by denying on something you are certain it is going to be reversed on appeal.

(Most) English prisoners only serve half the given sentence in prison before being released on license, so he won't go back to prison for that. I don't know if he can be held pending a US appeal on the extradition case, given his history of skipping bail.