Menu Close

Daily Summations

If Assange is sent to the U.S., he would face up to 175 years in prison over unprecedented espionage charges for publishing truthful information in the public interest.

Organizations providing thorough coverage on the extradition case against Julian Assange: Craig Murray, Defend WikiLeaks, Bridges for Media Freedom, Assange Defense, Consortium News, Shadowproof

Go to the Allies page under the “Resources” menu item to see a list of recommended Twitter accounts to follow to get regular updates on Assange’s extradition hearings.

See daily court reports from Bridges for Media Freedom below, and journalists who regularly cover Julian Assange beneath that.

April 20, 2022

On 24 January 2022, the High Court (the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Holroyde) certified that a point of law of public importance had been raised by Mr Assange following its rejection of his appeal.

March 14, 2022

UK Supreme Court refuses to hear Assange appeal

Statement from Assange’s legal team, Birnberg Peirce Solicitors

The point certified for the potential consideration by the Supreme Court was

“In what circumstances can an appellate court receive assurances from a requesting state which were not before the court of first instance in extradition proceedings.”

A panel of three judges of the Supreme Court has considered the application on paper, and this afternoon (14 March 2022) refused permission to appeal on the basis that “the application does not raise an arguable point of law.”

We regret that the opportunity has not been taken to consider the troubling circumstances in which Requesting States can provide caveated guarantees after the conclusion of a full evidential hearing. In Mr Assange’s case, the Court had found that there was a real risk of prohibited treatment in the event of his onward extradition.

We explain below the legal processes that now follow in his case.

The case, on the direction of the High Court, will now be remitted to Westminster Magistrates’ Court, whose function thereafter is limited to referring the decision for extradition to the Home Secretary, Priti Patel.

The Home Secretary then decides whether to order or refuse extradition to the United States on a number of statutory bases. The defence is entitled to make submissions to the Home Secretary within the following four weeks, in advance of her making any decision.

March 16, 2022

This article, by professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guildand Assange Defense Committee advisory board member Marjorie Cohn, was originally posted at

The British judicial system has erected still another barrier to Julian Assange’s freedom. On March 14, the U.K. Supreme Court refused to hear Assange’s appeal of the U.K. High Court’s ruling ordering his extradition to the United States. If extradited to the U.S. for trial, Assange will face 17 charges under the Espionage Act and up to 175 years in prison for revealing evidence of U.S. war crimes.

With no explanation of its reasoning, the Supreme Court denied Assange “permission to appeal” the High Court’s decision, saying that Assange’s appeal did not “raise an arguable point of law.” The court remanded the case back to the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, which is the same court that denied the U.S. extradition request on January 4, 2021.

In all likelihood, the magistrates’ court will refer the case to the British Home Office where Home Secretary Priti Patel will review it. Assange’s lawyers then have four weeks to submit materials for Patel’s consideration. If she orders Assange’s extradition — which is highly likely — his lawyers will file a cross-appeal in the High Court asking it to review the issues Assange lost in the magistrates’ court.

If the High Court refuses to review those additional issues, Assange can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. That could take years. Meanwhile, he languishes in London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison, in fragile mental and physical health. He suffered a mini-stroke as his extradition hearing began. United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer wrote in a Twitter post that the “U.K. is literally torturing him to death.”

January 24, 2022

 In an extremely brief court hearing in London this morning, the UK’s High Court announced that it has certified a point of law for Julian Assange to be able to apply to appeal to the Supreme Court. The High Court ruled not to allow the appeal itself but to certify the question of what stage in the extradition hearing process ‘assurances’ can or should be introduced. Assange is now allowed to apply to appeal on that specific point to the UK Supreme Court.

In January 2021, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled that it would be oppressive to extradite Assange on the grounds that it would drive him to suicide. The U.S. government appealed that decision, in part on the grounds that it should have been allowed to offer the district court “assurances” regarding Assange’s prospective treatment in the United States during the extradition hearing rather than afterward on appeal. The High Court overturned the lower court’s ruling, partially on the point that the judge should have informed the U.S. that it was “minded” to rule in Assange’s favor and allowed the U.S. government to offer assurances.

Assange will now appeal this point to the Supreme Court, which must first decide whether to allow an appeal hearing before setting a date. 

Journalists attempting to cover today’s legal proceedings remotely were provided with a video link just minutes before court was in session. However, they were never actually able to see what transpired in court, viewing only a blank screen instead. Those of us reporting on today’s developments had to rely on public tweets from those physically in attendance in London. 

December 10, 2021

Britain’s High Court ruled to approve the United States’ appeal of the District Judge’s decision not to extradite WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, sending the case back down to the Magistrate’s level for his extradition to be ordered. Assange’s fiancee Stella Moris called the decision “dangerous and misguided” and a “grave miscarriage of justice.”

Lord Justice Holroyde summarized the ruling and explained that the High Court had denied three of the U.S. government’s five lines of appeal argument which dealt with District Judge Vanessa Barrister’s handling of evidence in assessing Julian Assange’s suicide risk upon the order of his extradition. The High Court granted the U.S. government’s two other grounds for appeal dealing with the so-called ‘assurances’ the U.S. purports to provide regarding the treatment Assange would receive in prison. 

The U.S. had argued to the High Court that Judge Baraitser should have notified them during the extradition hearing that she was “minded” to rule against extradition on grounds of oppressive conditions so that it could provide assurances before she delivered her final verdict. 

Assange’s defense argued in response, per the High Court’s summary, “The offer of assurances comes too late. They do not remove the real risk of detention subject to SAMs and/or in ADX, or the real risk of detention in ADSEG and at Alexandria Detention Centre. In any event, even if the assurances are admitted the appeal should not be allowed but the case remitted to the judge with a direction to decide the relevant question again.”

The High Court sided with the U.S. on this question, and found that the assurances the U.S. gave were responsive to Baraitser’s specific concerns regarding Assange’s prospective treatment. “It follows that we are satisfied that, if the assurances had been before the judge, she would have answered the relevant question differently,” they write. 

In ruling to allow the U.S. government’s appeal, the High Court sends the case back down to the Westminster Magistrates’ Court with a direction for the district judge to then send the case to the Secretary of State to approve the extradition.

Responding to the ruling, Stella Moris said, “We will appeal this decision at the earliest possible moment.”

October 27-28 2021
(Report from Assange Defense)

Julian Assange Extradition Appeal: Day 1

Prosecution claims Assange won’t face isolation in U.S. prison

U.S. attempts to undermine renowned psychiatrist’s testimony

Defense responds; judge preferred Kopelman

Julian Assange Extradition Appeal: Day 2

Assange Defense Appeal Arguments

USA Vs. Assange Day Two: ‘CIA Tried To Kill Assange’

September 2020


Assange Defense

  • Continuing their Latin American tour, Wikileaks representatives Kristinn Hrafnsson and Joseph Farrell met with President-elect of Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to discuss the freedom of Julian Assange. President-elect […] The post Wikileaks delegation meets with President-elect of Brazil appeared first on Assange Defense.
  • "Publishing is not a crime." The post NYT, The Guardian, major media outlets urge U.S. to drop Julian Assange charges appeared first on Assange Defense.
  • WikiLeaks’ Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson and Joseph Farrell, WikiLeaks Ambassador are touring Latin America, meeting with seven heads of state to discuss Julian Assange’s extradition battle and raise support for his […] The post Wikileaks delegation touring Latin America to raise support for Julian Assange appeared first on Assange Defense.
  • Ithaka, the new documentary recounting the efforts of John Shipton, Julian Assange’s father, to campaign for his son’s freedom around the world, has made its North American premiere at the […] The post Assange doc Ithaka makes North American premiere  appeared first on Assange Defense.
  • Speeches by Jill Stein, Chip Gibbons, Rev. Annie Chambers, Ben Cohen, Chris Hedges, and dozens more followed a march around the DOJ. Protests around the country to free Assange The post VIDEO: Oct. 8 DOJ rally to Free Assange appeared first on Assange Defense.

Craig Murray’s Reports

25 February – 1 March 2020

Day 1: By Craig Murray – Global Research, February 25, 2020

Day 2: By Craig Murray – Global Research, February 26, 2020

Day 3: By Craig Murray – Global Research, February 28, 2020 By Craig Murray 27 February 2020

Day 4: By Craig Murray – Global Research, March 01, 2020

7 September – 1 October 2020

Day 5: by Craig Murray

Day 6: By Craig Murray – Global Research, September 08, 2020

Day 7: By Craig Murray – Global Research, September 09, 2020

Day 8: by Craig Murray, September 10, 2020

Day 9: By Craig Murray, September 15. 2020

Day 10: (1) September 16,2020 by Craig Murray
ALSO : By Craig Murray – Global Research, September 17, 2020 Craig Murray 16 September 2020

Day 11: At the Old Bailey by Dr. Binoy Kampmark Global Research, September 23, 2020

Day 12: (1) By Craig Murray – Global Research, September 18, 2020

Day 13: By Craig Murray – September 21, 2020

Day 14: By Craig Murray Global Research, September 23, 2020

Day 15: By Craig Murray Global Research, September 24, 2020

Day 16: By Craig Murray Global Research, September 25, 2020

Day 17: By Craig Murray September 25, 2020

Day 18: By Craig Murray September 28, 2020

Day 19: By Craig Murray – Global Research, September 29, 2020

Day 20: By Craig Murray – Global Research, September 30, 2020

Day 21: By Craig Murray – Global Research, 1 October 2020

The links herein will provide readers with full details of the Hearings in London of the case of Julian Assange, beginning 25 February 2020 to 15th October 2020.
With much gratitude we acknowledge the following contributors:
– Witnesses Testimonies:
– Daily Reports by the JADC:
– Don’t Extradite Assange:
– Ruptly TV:
– the World Socialist Web Site:
– Global Research

Kevin Gosztola’s Coverage on Shadowproof

  • In August, a lawsuit against the CIA, former CIA director Mike Pompeo, UC Global, and UC Global director David Morales was filed that alleged Americans who visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange when he was living in the Ecuador embassy had their privacy rights violated. The post Attorney: Plenty To Uncover […]
  • This article was funded by paid subscribers of The Dissenter Newsletter. Become an annual paid subscriber to help us continue our coverage of whistleblowers. A National Security Agency whistleblower unearthed a hot-shot analyst’s unauthorized “project” that targeted the communications of citizens or persons in the United States, according to a top secret inspector general […]
  • The United States government censored parts of Chelsea Manning’s new book, where she attempted to describe the information she provided to WikiLeaks in 2010. The post The Parts Of Chelsea Manning’s Book Censored By The US Government appeared first on Shadowproof.
  • In the United States government’s case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, prosecutors claim that he communicated with US Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning through an encrypted chat client known as Jabber. The post Chelsea Manning’s Book Further Complicates US Government’s Case Against Julian Assange appeared first on Shadowproof.
  • In one of the largest settlements ever secured by a whistleblower under the False Claims Act, the multinational pharmaceutical corporation Biogen agreed to pay $900 million in order to end a lawsuit related to an illegal kickback program. The post Biogen Whistleblower Lawsuit Against Massive Kickback Scheme Ends In Huge […]