Julian Assange: Bail cash decision delayed

[struggle4progress]

8. Delay for Assange's bail backers

... The other eight backers are retired professor Tricia David, Nobel Prize-winning scientist Sir John Sulston, journalist Philip Knightley, Lady Caroline Evans, friend Sarah Saunders, Joseph Farrell, Sarah Harrison and Tracy Worcester ...

Mr Smith, the founder of the Frontline Club for journalists, said the group had visited Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy, where he told them he feared persecution from the US authorities ...

Mr Smith added: 'Mr Assange expressed concern about the risk of forfeiture that the sureties face, however it was clear from our visit that sureties do not have the power to meaningfully intervene in this matter.

'This has become a matter between the Ecuadorian, British, Swedish, US and Australian governments' ...

http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=801954


To my knowledge, the US has never been involved in any manner or fashion in the lawsuit Judicial Authority v Assange. Moreover, Assange's lawyers dropped forward extradition to the US as an issue in Riddle's court, before conclusion of the original hearings at Belmarsh. So there seems to be no cause for Riddle to consider the views of or allegations of views about the views of the US government.

To my knowledge, Australia has never been directly involved in any manner or fashion in the lawsuit Judicial Authority v Assange. The Australians sent consular observers to all court hearings, and they apparently periodically sought guarantees of fair treatment, but Assange himself repeatedly refused offers of any direct contact with them, finding it more to his taste to complain that Australia had abandoned him. In particular, the Australians seem to have had no standing in the lawsuit either. So there seems to be no cause for Riddle to consider the views of or allegations of views about the views of the Australian government

The Swedish prosecutor, of course, initiated the process with the EAW and hence was represented in court. The Swedish authorities objected to bail from the beginning, and the fact that Assange jumped bail seems to vindicate the original Swedish position. So if Riddle infers the expressed views of the Swedish government, that could incline him somewhat towards forfeiture of the funds

To my knowledge, Ecuador has never been directly involved in any manner or fashion in the lawsuit Judicial Authority v Assange. After conclusion of Assange's second appeal to the Supreme Court, during the period Assange had been allowed for appeal to Strasbourg, Assange elected to jump bail and hide in the Ecuadorian embassy, rather than to launch an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights: that is, he chose not to use the further legal options remaining to him. So there seems to be no cause for Riddle to consider the views of or allegations of views about the views of the Ecuadorian government, but consideration of the procedural facts could incline him somewhat towards forfeiture of the funds

To my knowledge, the UK government has essentially deferred to its courts in this matter. Diplomatic matters are, of course, a prerogative of the Crown and not of the courts. It is likely that Riddle would defer, if Her Majesty's government were to beg leave from Riddle for opportunity to settle diplomatic matters, but there is no reason to expect such a request from the government: Ecuador allows Assange to remain in its embassy, under an asylum theory that the UK does not recognize, and Her Majesty's government will find no advantage in promoting the idea that such an asylum theory justifies bail-jumping. There might be cause for Riddle to consider the views of the UK government, were such views offered, but one should not expect such views to be offered

Vaughn Smith, on the other hand, has no reason whatsoever to imagine the court will countenance his view that this is some complicated five-way diplomatic affair between the Ecuadorian, British, Swedish, US and Australian governments, as diplomatic matters are a prerogative of the Crown and not a prerogative of Mr Vaughn Smith