WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange appeared to struggle to say his own name as he faced court to fight extradition to the US.
Assange, 48, is accused of leaking the country’s government secrets in one of the largest ever compromises of confidential information.
Clean shaven and with his white hair combed back, he appeared in the dock at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Monday wearing a dark blue suit over a pale blue sweater and white shirt.
READ MORE: Julian Assange should be brought to Australia, says father of WikiLeaks founder
He mumbled, paused and stuttered as he gave his name and date of birth at the start of a case management hearing.
Former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone and journalist and documentary maker John Pilger were among Assange’s supporters in a packed public gallery, while dozens of protesters gathered outside court.
Assange’s barrister Mark Summers QC said there is a “direct link” between the “reinvigoration” of the investigation, which was concluded during Barack Obama’s presidency, and the Donald Trump administration.
“Our case will be that this is a political attempt to signal to journalists the consequences of publishing information. It is legally unprecedented,” he said.
Mr Summers also claimed the US was involved in invading his client’s legal privilege.
“The American state has been actively engaged in intruding into privileged discussions between Mr Assange and his lawyers in the embassy, also unlawful copying of their telephones and computers (and) hooded men breaking into offices,” he said.
District Judge Venessa Baraitser refused to grant defence lawyers more time to gather evidence and told Assange his next case management hearing will take place on December 19 before a full extradition hearing in February.
When his case was adjourned, Assange complained that he had not understood proceedings, and said: “This is not equitable.”
He said: “I can’t research anything, I can’t access any of my writing. It’s very difficult where I am.”
He told the judge he is up against a “superpower” with “unlimited resources” and appeared to be fighting back tears as he added: “I can’t think properly.”
Assange was jailed for 50 weeks in May for breaching his bail conditions after going into hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for nearly seven years to avoid extradition to Sweden over sex offence allegations.
He was due to be released from high-security Belmarsh prison last month, but a judge remanded him in custody because there were “substantial grounds” for believing he would abscond.
READ MORE: Julian Assange faces new charge
Assange faces 18 charges in the US, including allegations he conspired to break into a Pentagon computer and worked with former US army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to leak hundreds of thousands of classified documents.
Former home secretary Sajid Javid signed an order in June allowing Assange to be extradited to the US over the computer-hacking allegations.
In May, WikiLeaks said it had “grave concerns” about Assange’s health after he was moved to a medical ward in Belmarsh prison. When he did not appear for a scheduled hearing, chief magistrate Emma Arbuthnot referred to the Australian as “not very well”.
WikiLeaks said at the time: “During the seven weeks in Belmarsh his health has continued to deteriorate and he has dramatically lost weight. The decision of the prison authorities to move him into the health ward speaks for itself.”
In a statement before the hearing, Massimo Moratti, Amnesty International’s deputy director for Europe, said: “The British authorities must acknowledge the real risks of serious human rights violations Julian Assange would face if sent to the USA and reject the extradition request. The UK must comply with the commitment it’s already made that he would not be sent anywhere he could face torture or other ill-treatment.
“The UK must abide by its obligations under international human rights law that forbids the transfer of individuals to another country where they would face serious human rights violations. Were Julian Assange to be extradited or subjected to any other transfer to the USA, Britain would be in breach of these obligations.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel