by CARL GARDNER on FEBRUARY 5, 2016
... The reasoning of the working group is thin, to say the least. It begins by noting that Assange was segregated from other prisoners for the ten days he was remanded in custody in Wandsworth prison ... without considering whether the decision to segregate him was justified, and without considering the fact that he had lawyers and applied for bail, so was not “left outside the cloak of legal protection”. On this approach, every segregated prisoner in the UK is arbitrarily detained.
Assange’s detention, the working group goes on, continued for 550 days in the form of what it calls “house arrest” ... This is of course the period in which Julian Assange was released on conditional bail and living at Ellingham Hall. Its quite true he had a curfew, and had to be there during the night hours. It’s true he was tagged, and had to report daily to the police. But otherwise as I understand it he was free to come and go. And these admittedly strict bail conditions are understandable given that Assange had already flown out of Sweden, where he was wanted. The working group does not consider why those bail conditions were imposed, the fact that Assange could have applied for a variation of bail, or that his move to the Ecuadorian embassy can be said to justify, after the fact, the judge’s imposition of bail conditions.
Breathtakingly, the working group fails to mention the fact that Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy after losing his Supreme Court battle against extradition. And as far as his prolonged residence there is concerned, the working group ... never actually addresses the question whether this really is detention, and even if it is whether Britain and Sweden are the “detainers” ...
... at no point does it consider whether Julian Assange might be even partly responsible for any of the delay, uncertainty or “indefinite procrastination” ...
http://www.headoflegal.com/2016/02/05/the-un-working-groups-assange-opinion/
= new reply since forum marked as read
