Here is a follow up letter by a supporter to the Metropolitan police in pursuit of his reporting the crimes of Misconduct in public office for three British Judges in their handling of the Julian Assange case. I refer you to his original letter published here.
I am writing to provide additional information in relation to three crime reports that I submitted last year. They were:
Emma Arbuthnot BCA-78253-20-0101-IR Tuesday 29 Sep 2020
CIN-41994-20-0100-000Deborah Taylor BCA-81963-20-0101-IR Monday 12 Oct 2020
CIN-43827-20-0100-000Michael Snow BCA-81927-20-0101-IR Tuesday 29 Sep 2020
CIN-43809-20-0100-000
Crime reference number 6543524/20I was told that crime reference numbers for the first two cases would be sent to the victim, Julian Assange.
The detail of each crime report was different, but I made the same point in all three, which was that each judge had chosen to disbelieve Assange when he said that he took asylum in the Ecuadorean Embassy because he feared extradition to the US, and that this provided a reasonable excuse to not comply with his bail conditions.
As you may be aware, Vanessa Baraitser has now ruled in the recent extradition hearing:
The Government of the United States of America v Julian Paul Assange(1)
She confirms that the timeline was as follows:
21 December 2017 A federal magistrate judge in the US issued a criminal complaint against Assange. (Paragraph 4 of Baraitser’s ruling.)
22 December 2017 A diplomatic note from the US requested Assange’s provisional arrest. Westminster Magistrate’s Court issued a warrant for his arrest. (Paragraph 8k and 8l of Baraitser’s ruling.)
In her ruling Baraitser provides confirmation (in paragraphs 166 and 206) of the early knowledge of the US case:
166 cites Assange’s lawyer saying on 15 August 2017 that “there was an ongoing criminal investigation [in the US] and there had been reports of a sealed indictment. Mr. Assange had been granted asylum by Ecuador because of this and he remained in the embassy to protect himself from US extradition”
206 cites the US as stating “Mr. Assange is a fugitive on the basis that he lived in the embassy for seven years for the express purpose [of] avoiding the prosecution he now faces”
Arbuthnot, Taylor and Snow all made their rulings, discussed in the crime reports, after December 2017. This provides confirmation that they would all have been aware that the purpose of seeking asylum in the Ecuadorean Embassy was not to avoid justice in Sweden, but was to avoid onward extradition to the US. Despite this, they made their rulings under the pretence that the US was not an issue, and that Assange was trying to avoid justice in Sweden.
Assange had repeatedly offered to go to Sweden to be interviewed, provided that he was given assurances that he would not be rendited to the US. Sweden refused to give that assurance. Sweden has a history of handing people to the CIA illegally to be tortured.(2) Assange therefore faced serious harm if he complied with the bail conditions.
Baraitser’s ruling (para 355) is that Assange cannot be extradited to the US because of the risk that he would commit suicide due to the “extreme conditions of SAMs” [Special Administrative Measures]. She is therefore confirming that if Assange had complied with his bail conditions, then there was a significant risk of serious harm.
Arbuthnot, Taylor and Snow all ignored the harm that Assange might face if he complied with his bail conditions. This is extremely serious Misconduct in Public Office, and I trust that the police will investigate and prosecute these crimes to the full extent of the law.
Could you let me know what has happened so far in relation to these three cases? I would also like to know what has happened in relation to a fourth case of Misconduct in Public Office. That was
Paul Close BCA-78262-20-0101-IR Tuesday 29 Sep 2020
CIN-41993-20-0100-000I have been surprised to have heard nothing at all about any of these crime reports.
References
1) https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-Assange-judgment-040121.pdf
2) https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition
1/05/21 On the railings at Southwark Crown Court.
I have filed three Freedom of information request. One to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office requesting any information on their potential investigations of these reporter crimes. On to the Ministry of Justice requesting copy of the Diplomatic Note that the US Department of Justice sent on 21 December 2017. One to the Courts and Tribunals Service requesting a copy of the Arrest Warrant Westminster Magistrates Court issued against Julian Assange in December 20217. I will update this blog post with any information when/if I get it.
1/05/21 On the railings at Southwark Crown Court
RSS - Posts
Interesting to note that Deborah Taylor who also sentenced 81 year old political prisoner Aravindan Balakrishnan to 23 years, refused to listen to any mitigating letters from people who knew that he was being framed. All letters were dismissed by her as “irrelevant”.
It is also important to note that as soon as A. Balakrishnan got up to speak for the first time in the trial in 2015 on November 26 and related to the jury about his history of political activism in service of the people of the world which the kangaroo couet proceedings had sought to cover up she quickly wound up the trial proceedings, reducing it from an expected 5 and a half weeks to 3 weeks!