Infiltration of the Courts
Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning: A string of American whistle-blowers, all having exposed to light the top-secret, unconstitutional conduct of the American Government. To add to this list is the more recent case of Julian Assange. Charged with criminal theft of Governmental secrets, his case exposes just how immune our courts are to the winds of political rhetoric.
Just September of this year, and with very minimal media coverage, Julian Assange’s extradition hearing took place. Notwithstanding fierce contentions from the likes of Benkler, a Harvard law professor, who eloquently expressed the severe legal implications of prosecuting WikiLeaks and took note of the ‘vastly overbroad’ nature of the indictments,[1] the Courts have been virtually blind to the very real threat to national security reporting. Benkler proceeds that such regards ought to play a substantive role in the rejection of the indictment.[2] His voice is one of many: DeCell, a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute continues that the consequences of legal action would ‘risk having a chill on journalism’. She notes that it would undermine the ‘first amendment’s protections of journalistic activity’.[3] Perhaps this might justify why the trial has been characterised by the likes of Glass as being an ‘unprecedented and illegal campaign’ for the elimination of Mr Assange.[4]
More seriously, the ostensible function of the UK Courts as a champion of freedom of journalistic activity and general freedom of speech appears to need serious reconsideration. Is it really retaining its own identify through these hearings or merely operating as an agent for America? Objections that Assange would, irrespective of country, not receive a fair trial are not unheard of. After all, can the UK courts really qualify as a match against the most powerful country? By the time Assange’s hearing was due to take place on September 8th, the Government had under its belt a total of 10 years, with the most expensive resources, and competent lawyers, to prepare a case against Assange. Assange on the contrary, had very minimal contact with his advocates, and was even under the observations of a maximum-security prison, well-fitted for a man accused of crimes against the self-proclaimed ‘masters of the universe’. His request for additional preparation time was duly dismissed by the Court. It is contended that it is difficult to see that the courts were not influenced by some political regards in this determination.
And as such, whilst the UK courts might generally maintain of a degree of impartiality to political rhetoric, to claim of an absolute and total immunity would be an unwarranted submission to make. It seems that our courts have quite a way to go before such a comfortable boast can be made.
[1] Benkler, ‘A Free Irresponsible Press’(2011) Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review
[2] ibid
[3] Ed Pilkinton, ‘Julian Assange’s charges are a direct assault on press freedom, experts warn’ https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/12/julian-assange-charges-press-freedom-journalism accessed 13 November 2020.
[4] C Glass, ‘The Unprecedented and Illegal Campaign to Eliminate Julian Assange’ https://theintercept.com/2020/10/06/julian-assange-trial-extradition/ accessed 13 November 2020.