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11 April 2019 when that status was revoked.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: [email protected]
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
