[Theme Music Starts]

ASHLYNNE:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ashlynne McGhee. This is 7am.

“Punishment by process” is the way Julian Assange’s lawyer describes the long, meandering court process he’s facing.

In a decision that may have saved him from being immediately extradited to the US, the British High Court ruled on Monday that it’ll hear one more appeal against his extradition, but not until later this year.

The only other literal get out of jail card for Assange is if the US drops the charges against him.

Today, his lawyer Jennifer Robinson on why she’s back in Australia lobbying the government and whether they can secure a deal before the US election in November.

It’s Wednesday, May 22.

[Theme Music Ends]

ASHLYNNE:

So, Jen, you're someone who has stood by Julian Assange during some of his most crucial legal battles. Last night you were watching via video link. What was that like?

JEN:

It was difficult for me. I don't like being away because I'm always there for the hearings, but for other work reasons, I had to be here. And so, you know, it's 7:30 at night. I'm logging on to the British morning.

Audio excerpt — Protests outside court:

“Free, free, free Assange!”

JEN:

Those of us who have been granted remote access are able to watch. We see on the screen, my colleagues sitting there preparing to stand up and raise the arguments. I can see Stella sitting behind our counsel and knowing how nerve wracking this is for her. I'd been speaking to her before court.

Audio excerpt — Stella Assange:

“We hope that the courts do the right thing today and find in Julian's favour.”

JEN:

It's such a momentous moment because he could have been extradited, and we don't know what's going to happen and we have to be prepared for every outcome. So obviously a huge amount of preparation goes into that before we sit down to attend the hearing. But the outcomes for him either were, you're being extradited and you're on a plane, in which case we would be scrambling to make a European Court of Human Rights application to try and stop it, which is not guaranteed. So he could have been on a plane to the United States. Now we've got this brief reprieve.

Audio excerpt — Stella Assange:

“We spent a long time here in the United States putting lipstick on a pig. But the judges did not buy it. As a family, we are relieved. But how long can this go on?”

JEN:

So obviously, for his family and for all of us who have been working so hard on his case, it's a relief but a brief reprieve.

ASHLYNNE:

So was Julian Assange in court last night?

JEN:

He wasn't in court, unfortunately. He's just not well enough. Your listeners might remember that in one of the appeal hearings over the past few years since he's been in Belmarsh, he had a mini stroke. And so the stress of those proceedings and his mental and physical health have declined significantly. So for us, we are trying to protect him as best we can. So he had permission to appear. The court had given him permission to appear in person. It was decided that he was not able to because of his health picture.

ASHLYNNE:

So tell me a little bit more about what happened inside the court, what was said and what was discussed.

JEN:

So we won the case back in 2021, on the basis that it would be oppressive to extradite Julian to the United States because of his particular mental health picture and the oppressive prison conditions he would face in the United States.

Audio excerpt — News reporter:

“Supporters of Julian Assange erupt in cheers as Judge Vanessa Baraitser handed down her ruling, rejecting the United States request to extradite him, citing concerns over his mental health.”

JEN:

The medical experts said that it would cause his suicide so the prison conditions would cause his death. His extradition was barred on that basis. The US didn't like that outcome and immediately offered an assurance, saying, well, we won't place him in particular prison conditions. We weren't able to test that assurance in court, and it was waved through by the British judges. And then all of a sudden, his extradition was ordered by the Home Secretary. We then had to appeal, saying you can't extradite him in these circumstances. And we re-enlivened all of our earlier appeal grounds about political opinion, about free speech, about the risks that will be subjected to the death penalty. All of these issues that weren't properly, that we say, weren't properly determined before. We got a judgement in March and in that judgement, the court rejected all of our grounds, bar three. So we were given provisional leave to appeal in respect of three grounds. First, the fact that Julian, as an Australian journalist and citizen, could be subjected to the death penalty on the basis of the facts in the indictment as charged if he was extradited to the United States and the US had not offered any kind of assurance against that, which is completely routine in cases like this. The second two grounds are connected. That he's an Australian citizen and that as an Australian citizen and foreign journalist once extradited to the United States, the US is going to argue that he does not get free speech constitutional protections under the First Amendment, as a foreigner.

Audio excerpt — News reporter:

“Again, that because he's an Australian citizen, he can't rely on the same defences as his US citizen counterparts if they were in the same situation as him. So he's been given another chance to appeal this extradition.”

JEN:

And we said you can't extradite on the basis that it would be a grave violation of his free speech and discriminating against him on the basis of his Australian nationality. The problem is with the assurance on First Amendment. What the US said is, once he's in the United States, he can seek to rely in court on the First Amendment but it's a matter for the courts to decide. So as the US government, we can't bind the judiciary on what they're going to decide. So for Julian, publishing information, receiving and publishing information outside the US, there is a very real risk that he will be denied First Amendment protections. And the assurance that the US gave, we say, is no assurance at all. This argument was heard last night, and the court agreed with us and said, this is a real problem, the US, you haven't offered us any satisfactory answers to this. We’re going to list this for an appeal hearing later in the year.

Audio excerpt — News reporter:

“Two of Britain's most senior judges were comfortable the WikiLeaks founder wouldn't face the death penalty, but weren't convinced he'd be guaranteed the same free speech protections as a US citizen.”

JEN:

So it doesn't mean that he's protected from extradition. It just means that we will now have a full appeal hearing on this question of, as an Australian journalist, will he get First Amendment protections, and is there any assurance that can protect him against the risk he won't.

ASHLYNNE:

So just going back to what was said in court last night and kind of exploring that a little bit more, the assurances that were given by the US, is there any assurance at all that would assuage the concerns? Like is there anything that they could say that from your perspective, would make it an okay thing for him to then face trial in the US?

JEN:

Absolutely not. We don't accept the assurance that they've given about prison conditions. And from my point of view, there is no satisfactory assurance. The US government cannot, on the state of US law, cannot tell us that he will definitely be allowed to rely on the First Amendment, and then we have broader concerns in that at all, because even if he's extradited and they say, well, yes, you can rely on the First Amendment, how long will it take for him to go through the US legal system to get to the Supreme Court where we can have that constitutional fight? This could go on for years, and this is why I call it punishment by process, because he's not been convicted of anything in the United States. He's been in a high security prison for five years. He was in the Ecuadorian embassy for seven and a half years before that, protecting him from this very outcome.

And so what we're saying is this is setting a dangerous precedent, not just for him, but for every journalist and editor anywhere in the world. It should never have been brought. It's a Trump administration indictment. The Obama administration chose not to pursue it. The Biden administration is allowing this to happen and has the power to put it to an end. It is criminalising public interest journalism. It has been warned by The New York Times and The Washington Post that it's criminalising the public interest journalistic practices they engage in all day, every day. And I think it's having a huge chilling effect on national security reporting. So for all these reasons, we've got a Biden administration who says they support press freedom, who says they won't prosecute the media and yet are allowing this prosecution of Julian Assange to continue.

ASHLYNNE:

After the break, what it’s like visiting Assange inside Belmarsh prison.

[Advertisement]

ASHLYNNE:

Jennifer, when did you last see Julian Assange?

JEN:

I saw him just before I left the United Kingdom. I've been back in Australia, for work reasons, including working on his case here, working with the Australian government. So I saw him last month, and I speak to him on the phone every day.

ASHLYNNE:

Tell me about the last time you saw him, take us there with you.

JEN:

It's really awful going to Belmarsh. So people need to understand, it's this high security, the highest security prison in the UK. It's in sort of far south east London. It is dismal to go there. So imagine London on a dreary day and having to go out to Belmarsh. When I go there, I have to go through so much security. I'm fingerprinted. I get, you know, I get frisked, they go through my papers. All I can take in is like a little bit of money to buy him some of the best healthy food I can get in the prison cafe. I buy him a Kit-Kat and some fruit, try to give him some vitamins, and I have to sort of go through to this legal consultation area where I pass people who have been convicted of murder and rape and terrorism offences, to go and see an Australian, an award-winning, Australian publisher and journalist who's been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year since he made these publications, that are the reasons he’s in that prison cell.

I've been his lawyer for 14 years. I've been visiting him in Belmarsh for five and a half years. You have to constantly resist the normalisation of this situation, because what does this say about our democracy? What does it say about the United Kingdom? What does it say about the US? What does it say about Australia? What does it say about our relationships? Honestly, in years to come, people will look back on this case and the fact that I had to go to a high security prison to visit an award-winning Australian journalist for years on end, people will think, how on earth did this take so long? How did this happen, and how did it take so long to resolve?

ASHLYNNE:

Talk to me about the first time you went and visited him in that prison five years ago. And when he walked in, what he looked like compared to what he looks like when he walks in now.

JEN:

I remember when he was dragged out of the Ecuadorian embassy. Again, I'd been seeing him in the embassy at least a couple of times a week in London for the seven and a half years he was there. And so for me, I sort of... the slow decline you don't notice as much. And then everybody was shocked when they saw him dragged out. But I, again, it had become so normalised that he looked like this. So think back to how he looked five and a half years ago, and imagine five and a half more years in prison and the impact that that has on a person. He is incredibly unwell. You know, I'm really worried about him. I don't want to disclose too much of his medical situation, but what we can say is that he is in a very difficult situation. He has regular mental health support. He was not well enough to turn up to court this week, and that's part of the reason why we're pushing so hard to try and get a resolution to this case, to bring it to an end, because they're stealing his life and his health.

ASHLYNNE:

You're back here in Australia at the moment. And you said you’re back here in part because of him. Have you been meeting with the Prime Minister and foreign minister or their representatives since you've been back?

JEN:

I'm in regular contact with Australian government officials, with our attorney general, with our Prime Minister, and with our ambassador in DC. And we are continually trying to work with them to resolve the case. We are very grateful to our Prime Minister, to Prime Minister Albanese, who's the first Australian Prime Minister to speak out in support of Julian and to take the principal decision that he has taken to try and help us to resolve it. And it's the right one and we are very grateful to him for what he's doing. We know that he's raised it at the highest levels, and the question now is, what will the United States do with this? We have the Australian people in support. We've got the Australian Parliament in support. We've got the Australian government in support. We've got Latin American leaders. So I've just in Chile, we've had the president of Mexico, the president of Brazil, Lula was out last night tweeting, saying, you know, Julian should have received a Pulitzer for these publications, not be in a high security prison and it's time he's released. And he's right. And so the question is how much more political pressure needs to be brought to bear before this absolutely absurd and abhorrent case is put to an end.

ASHLYNNE:

So what happens from here?

JEN:

Well, we start preparing for the appeal, so there'll be some back and forth between the parties this week, to determine a timetable for the hearing. We'll have to wait to get a court listing. But typically in these cases, it could be, it could be months, it could be six months, that we're waiting for a court listing. So six months longer that he will be in prison.

And so we continue to do our public advocacy calling on the US to drop the case, because, of course, the only reason he's in Belmarsh right now is because of this US extradition request. We don't know what's going to happen with the US election. We don't know what political situation we'll be looking at after the US election. And it's urgent, this is his health. This is the life of an Australian citizen. It's a life of an award winning, Walkley Award winning, Australian journalist. And it deserves more urgency than that. And the US election should not be the sort of dictating the schedule, it should be more urgent than that.

If we're successful, this will protect other journalists and editors from going through the same proceedings that Julian has been through. But at what cost to Julian Assange? That's my question. Why should he spend five, ten years, maybe longer, in a prison to protect these press freedoms?

That's too much to ask of one person.

ASHLYNNE:

Thanks so much for your time, Jen.

JEN:

No problem. Happy to chat to you.

[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Starts]

ASHLYNNE:

Also in the news today...

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has condemned the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor for seeking arrest warrants for himself and his defence minister, alongside Hamas leaders.

The chief ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, says there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant bear criminal responsibility for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

And,

The Australian government has sent two flights to New Caledonia to evacuate stranded Australian tourists amid violent protests across the country.

At least 300 Australian travellers have been stuck in the French Pacific territory since the eruption of deadly riots that have triggered a state of emergency.

That’s all from us today. Thanks for your company, we’ll see you again tomorrow.

[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Ends]