Judges had deferred a decision on whether Assange could take his case to another appeal hearing

Julian Assange has been granted leave to mount a fresh appeal against his extradition to the US on charges of leaking military secrets and will be able to challenge assurances from American officials on how a trial there would be conducted.

Two judges had deferred a decision in March on whether Assange, who is trying to avoid being prosecuted in the US on espionage charges relating to the publication of thousands of classified and diplomatic documents, could take his case to another appeal hearing.

On that occasion, Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson ruled he would be able to bring an appeal against extradition on three grounds, unless “satisfactory” assurances were given by the US.

The assurances requested were that he would be permitted to rely on the first amendment of the US constitution, which protects freedom of speech; that he would not be “prejudiced at trial” due to his nationality; and that the death penalty would not be imposed.

  • PugJesus@kbin.social
    1012·
    1 month ago

    Wow, I’m so glad that the online left is now into outright rape apologia. “There was only a preliminary investigation because he fled the day he was going to be arrested, therefore, this is clearly a false accusation” My favorite bit is where the article talks about how the woman accusing him of rape never actually accused him of rape, and then outright admits

    She says that’s not a problem. He could sleep with her in her bed. Consensual sex occurred that night. With condom. But she says Assange intentionally broke the condom during intercourse. If that is the case, it is of course a sexual offense, so-called stealthing.

    But hey, believe all women, until they say something against someone we like.

    Fucking repulsive.

    “He was tortured because he stayed in an embassy of his own free will to avoid being arrested” is another fucking gem.

    Some people have no fucking decency.

    More than 300 human rights lawyers and law professors from numerous countries sharply criticized Melzer in response. In an open letter, they said that on the issue of sexual violence, Melzer’s intervention was “both legally erroneous and harmful to the development and protection of human rights law.” Melzer said he stood by his statement that the evidence collected in Sweden was not a basis for investigating the suspected rape.[142][143][144]

    One of the women interviewed by Melzer later criticised him and demanded his resignation. She said that by defining how a “proper rape-victim” should act, Melzer was engaging in victim blaming and that his report was partially untrue and defamatory.[145]