Assange wins bid to appeal US extradition ruling: UK judges
LONDON: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Monday won a bid to appeal against a UK court ruling that approved his extradition to the United States to face trial for breaking national security laws.
Two London High Court judges granted Assange permission to appeal, having previously asked Washington to provide “satisfactory assurances” about free speech protections at any US trial. Those submissions were presented at a hearing on Monday, which the 52-year-old Australian did not attend.
Assange is wanted by Washington for publishing hundreds of thousands of secret US documents from 2010 as head of the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks. Had he lost at Monday´s hearing, Assange -- who has become a figurehead for free speech campaigners -- could have been swiftly extradited after a five-year legal battle.
Instead, he will now face another court battle in his long-running legal saga, after the UK government approved his extradition in June 2022. Assange´s wife Stella said outside court that the ruling “marks a turning point” and that “we are relieved as a family that the court took the right decision.
“Everyone can see what should be done here. Julian must be freed,” she added. Human rights monitor Amnesty International called the ruling “a rare piece of positive news for Julian Assange and all defenders of press freedom”.
“The USA´s ongoing attempt to prosecute Assange puts media freedom at risk worldwide. It ridicules the USA´s obligations under international law, and their stated commitment to freedom of expression,” said Simon Crowther, legal adviser at Amnesty.
In written submissions for the hearing, Edward Fitzgerald, representing Assange, accepted as “unambiguous” US government assurances that he would not face the death penalty. But he queried whether his client could rely on the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which covers freedom of speech and freedom of the press, at trial.
James Lewis, representing the US government, told the court Assange´s conduct was “simply unprotected” by the First Amendment. It does not apply to anyone “in relation to publication of illegally obtained national defence information giving the names of innocent sources to their grave and imminent risk of harm”, he submitted.
-
Alan Cumming Shares Plans With 2026 Bafta Film Awards -
OpenClaw Founder Peter Steinberger Hired By OpenAI As AI Agent Race Heats Up -
Kate Middleton's Reaction To Harry Stepping Back From Royal Duties Laid Bare -
Rose Byrne Continues Winning Streak After Golden Globe Awards Victory -
Ice Hockey Olympics Update: Canada Stays Unbeaten With Dominant Win Over France -
Brooklyn Beckham Makes This Promise To Nicola Peltz Amid Family Feud -
Chinese New Year Explained: All You Need To Know About The Year Of The Horse -
Canadian Passport Holders Can Now Travel To China Visa-free: Here's How -
Maya Hawke Marries Christian Lee Hutson In New York Ceremony -
Glen Powell Reveals Wild Prank That Left Sister Hunting Jail Cells -
Edmonton Weather Warning: Up To 30 Cm Of Snow Possible In Parts Of Alberta -
'A Knight Of The Seven Kingdoms' Episode 5: What Time It Airs And Where To Stream -
Amy Schumer Drops Cryptic Message On First Valentine Amid Divorce -
Savannah Guthrie Sends Desperate Plea To Mom Nancy Kidnapper -
NBA All-Star 2026 Shake-up: Inside The New USA Vs World Tournament Format -
Warner Bros Consider Reopening Deal Talks With Paramount, Says Reports