By Edward Trotter-
Julian Assange, the notorious founder of Wikileaks, has been told by a judge that he must have the courage to face the law.
The attempt of WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to overturn an arrest warrant issued by the British authorities for skipping bail failed woefully at the Courts. A judge told him he should have the courage to face the courts.
The decisive ruling delivered by District Judge Emma Arbuthnot concluded that Mr. Assange appeared to consider himself above the law.
At one stage she dismissed his argument that he was suffering from poor health and lack of sunlight as a result of having sought refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for the past five years, stating she had seen photographs of him standing on the balcony on numerous occasions.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Mr. Assange had argued it was no longer in the public interest to pursue him for failing to answer bail at a police station after moving into the embassy during his fight for extradition to face rape charges in Sweden.
However, before a packed Westminster Magistrates’ Court Judge Arbuthnot said: “I find arrest is a proportionate response even though Mr Assange has restricted his own freedom for a number of years.”
“Defendants on bail up and down the country, and requested persons facing extradition come to court to face the consequences of their own choices.
“He should have the courage to do the same. It is certainly not against the public interest to proceed.”
She dismissed Assange’s plea that as a result of his exile at the Ecuadorian Embassy, his health was suffering and therefore he should be released. She instead counteracted his claims by saying: “Mr Assange is fortunately in relatively good physical health. He has a serious tooth problem and is in need of dental treatment and needs an MRI scan on a shoulder which has been described as frozen. I accept he has depression and suffers respiratory infections.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
“I do not accept there is no sunlight, there are a number of photographs of him on a balcony connected to the premises he inhabits. Mr Assange’s health problems could be much worse.”
Judge Arbuthnot went continued: “I do not find that Mr Assange’s fears were reasonable. I do not accept that Sweden would have rendered Mr Assange to the United States. If that happened there would have been a diplomatic crisis between the United Kingdom, Sweden and the United States.”
The judge particularly highlighted that Assange had chosen to enter the embassy after leaving a country house in Norfolk where the only bail restrictions where that he had to stay indoors at night and attend a police station to sign on daily.
“I do not find those restrictions harsh,” she said. She went on to point out that in contrast to most prisoners he enjoyed access to a computer, mobile phone, and the internet.
Handing down her judgment at a packed Westminster Magistrates’ Court she said: “I find arrest is a proportionate response even though Mr. Assange has restricted his own freedom for a number of years.”
“Defendants on bail up and down the country, and requested persons facing extradition come to court to face the consequences of their own choices.
“He should have the courage to do the same. It is certainly not against the public interest to proceed.”
Dismissing Assange’s plea his health was suffering as a result of living in the embassy she said: “Mr Assange is fortunately in relatively good physical health. He has a serious tooth problem and is in need of dental treatment and needs an MRI scan on a shoulder which has been described as frozen. I accept he has depression and suffers respiratory infections.
“I do not accept there is no sunlight, there are a number of photographs of him on a balcony connected to the premises he inhabits. Mr. Assange’s health problems could be much worse.”
Judge Arbuthnot went on:
“I do not find that Mr. Assange’s fears were reasonable. I do not accept that Sweden would have rendered Mr. Assange to the United States. If that happened there would have been a diplomatic crisis between the United Kingdom, Sweden and the United States.”
The judge pointed out that Assange had chosen to enter the embassy after leaving a country house in Norfolk where the only bail restrictions where that he had to stay indoors at night and attend a police station to sign on daily.
“I do not find those restrictions harsh,” she said. She went on to point out that in contrast to most prisoners he enjoyed access to a computer, mobile phone, and the internet.“I suspect if one were to ask one of the men incarcerated in Wandsworth prison whether conditions in the Ecuadorian embassy were akin to a remand in custody, the prisoner would dispute the working group’s assertions.”
The 46-year-old – who has expressed fears of extradition to the United States for questioning over the activities of WikiLeaks claims the rape charge is a pretext to arrest him and deliver him to the U.S authorities. However, he cannot validate his argument that his breach of bail for a rape case should be overlooked. Rape is a serious charge, and his allegation that the charge is being used as a false pretext is an argument he has to make in court, not from the Ecuadorian Embassy. This is where his case fails badly in any legal or logical sense.
A large contingent of his supporters was in court and gasped audibly as the unfavorable judgment and its many legal explanations were made. Many felt a recent Human Rights groups judgment that Mr.Assange was being detained unlawfully should have saved him. Unfortunately, no statements made by any group do not represent the judgment of the law, and the courts simply did not agree.
The reasoning of the courts is right otherwise there would be no order or need for a law if people could just breach bail without any consequence.
He accused the UK of a “cover-up” to keep him detained and claimed his case had exposed “improper conduct” by the Crown Prosecution Service. Judge Arbuthnot disagreed and said that far from being ‘detained’ he had effectively restricted his own freedom. His fight for freedom has hit another hard rejection, and Mr.Assange should by now understand that he can’t escape the law under any circumstances, and, must be held accountable for all his actions, just like every other citizen. Breaching bail has always been an offense which is punishable through capture until the defendant answers the charges for which the bail was placed. Assange has just two choices left, and that is to continue to rot indefinitely at the Ecuadorian Embassy, or faces the charges against him.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar