<nettime> To follow Assange UK court rulings

[John Young <jya@pipeline.com>]

https://www.judiciary.uk/?s=assange (to follow Assange UK court rulings)

Example:

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/sentencing-remarks-of-hhj-deborah-taylor-r-v-assange/

JUDICIARY OF ENGLAND AND WALES

R v Julian Assange (Bail Act offence)
Sentencing Remarks of HHJ Deborah Taylor
Southwark Crown Court

1 May 2019

Julian Assange, on 11 April 2019 you were 
convicted at Westminster Magistrates Court of an 
offence under s.6(1) of the Bail Act 1976, and 
committed to this court for sentence.

On 24 February 2011 the Westminster Magistrates 
Court ordered your extradition to Sweden to face 
allegations of sexual offending, including an 
allegation of rape. You were granted bail on 
conditions throughout your appeals against this 
order, which culminated on 14 June 2012 in the 
rejection of your application to re-open the 
Supreme Court dismissal of your appeal. On 19 
June 2012 you entered the Ecuadorean Embassy. On 
28th June 2012 a notice requiring your surrender 
to Belgravia Police Station on 29 June 2012 was 
served on you in the Ecuadorian embassy. You did 
not surrender and a warrant for your arrest was 
issued by Westminster Magistrates Court on 29 June 2012.

On 16 August 2012, Ecuador granted you diplomatic 
asylum status. You remained in the Embassy until 
11 April 2019 when that status was revoked. 
Police entered at the invitation of the 
Government of Ecuador, and arrested you. You were 
brought before Westminster Magistrates Court. 
Bail Act proceedings were initiated and you were 
convicted of the s.6(1) offence. You have not 
appealed that conviction. The background to this 
offence is now put forward as mitigation, rather 
than as any reasonable excuse for your failure to surrender.

I have considered, and had regard to the 
Sentencing Council Guidelines for failing to 
surrender to bail, the seriousness of the failure 
to surrender, the level of culpability and the 
harm caused. This was in terms of culpability a 
deliberate attempt to evade or delay justice. In 
terms of harm, there are several features of this 
case which put this in the A1 category, but in 
addition, are exceptional in seriousness, and 
therefore in my judgment put this offence outside 
the Guideline range for even the

2

highest category offences. The Magistrates Court 
has committed the matter to this court having 
considered that its powers of sentence were insufficient.

Firstly, by entering the Embassy, you 
deliberately put yourself out of reach, whilst 
remaining in the UK. You remained there for 
nearly 7 years, exploiting your privileged 
position to flout the law and advertise 
internationally your disdain for the law of this 
country. Your actions undoubtedly affected the 
progress of the Swedish proceedings. Even though 
you did co-operate initially, it was not for you 
to decide the nature or extent of your 
co-operation with the investigations. They could 
not be effectively progressed, and were 
discontinued, not least because you remained in the Embassy.

Secondly, your continued residence in the Embassy 
has necessitated a concentration of resources, 
and expenditure of £16 million of taxpayers? 
money in ensuring that when you did leave, you 
were brought to justice. It is essential to the 
rule of law that nobody is above or beyond the 
reach of the law. Orders of the Court are to be obeyed

Thirdly, you have not surrendered willingly. Had 
the Government of Ecuador not permitted entry to 
the Embassy, you would not have voluntarily come before the court.

I have taken into account all that has been said 
on your behalf in mitigation, including the
background history of this case which has been 
set out in some detail. These are matters which 
have previously been argued before the Chief 
Magistrate in relation to the instigation of s.6 
proceedings and dismissed in her Ruling of 13 
February 2018 on your application to withdraw the 
warrant, and again before the District Judge in 
the contested hearing on 11 April 2019 in which 
you did not give evidence, and they were rejected 
as affording any defence. They include the 
history of the Swedish investigation and 
proceedings, with the discontinuance of the 
proceedings in 2017, and your expressed fear of 
being extradited to Sweden but then rendered to 
the USA. As far as the UN Working Group on 
Arbitrary Detention opinion is concerned, this is 
not binding on this court, and, as is apparent 
from the ruling of the Chief Magistrate, with 
some personal knowledge of the matters relied 
upon, it was underpinned by misconceptions of fact and law.

It is no longer argued that these factors amount 
to good reason for your failure to surrender. In 
my judgment they afford limited mitigation in 
relation to this offence. The argument that as a 
result this is a category C case is wholly unrealistic given the circumstances.

Whilst you may have had fears as to what may 
happen to you, nonetheless you had a choice, and 
the course of action you chose was to commit this 
offence in the manner and with the features I 
have already outlined. In addition, I reject the 
suggestion that your voluntary residence in the 
Embassy should reduce any sentence. You were not 
living under prison conditions, and you could 
have left at any time to face due process with 
the rights and protections which the legal system in this country provides.

Similarly I reject also the suggestion that 
forfeiture of money by you or others who provided 
security for your attendance when you failed to 
attend court should reduce the sentence of the 
court. The money was security attached to an 
obligation to ensure your attendance, not a down 
payment to offset or reduce any sentence you may receive for not complying.

I have taken into account the medical evidence of 
Dr Korzinski and Dr Ladbrooke as to the mental 
and physical effects of being in the Embassy for a prolonged period.

It is difficult to envisage a more serious 
example of this offence. The maximum sentence for 
this offence is 12 months. You do not have the 
benefit of a plea of guilty. You have made a 
written apology today, the first recognition that you regret you actions.

3

In my judgment, the seriousness of your offence, 
having taken into account the mitigation merits a sentence near the maximum.

The sentence is imprisonment for 50 weeks.

Any time spent on remand in respect of this 
offence from the time of your arrest on 11 April 
2019 will count against your sentence.

In respect of this offence you would fall to be 
released after serving half of the sentence, 
subject to being returned to custody if you 
commit any further offences during the remainder 
of your licence period. That of course is subject 
to the conditions and outcome of any other proceedings against you.

HHJ Deborah Taylor
Recorder of Westminster
1 May 2019


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: