The court refused permission this week on the ground ‘the application does not raise an arguable point of law’.
Previously, the High Court had held the extradition should go ahead, overturning an earlier ruling that Assange’s mental health conditions suggested a risk of suicide. It accepted assurances given by the US authorities that Assange would not be held in highly restrictive conditions and would therefore be safe.
Last month, Lord Burnett, the Lord Chief Justice, accepted there were legal questions over how those assurances were given. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application to appeal on the basis a point of law of public importance had been raised, namely: ‘In what circumstances can an appellate court receive assurances from a requesting state which were not before the court of first instance in extradition proceedings.’
Westminster Magistrates’ Court will now remit the case to Home Secretary Priti Patel, who will decide whether or not to authorise the extradition. Assange’s lawyers Birnberg Peirce have four weeks in which to make submissions to Patel.
A statement issued by Assange’s lawyers Birnberg Peirce said: ‘We regret that the opportunity has not been taken to consider the troubling circumstances in which Requesting States can provide caveated guarantees after the conclusion of a full evidential hearing. In Mr Assange’s case, the Court had found that there was a real risk of prohibited treatment in the event of his onward extradition.’
The US authorities want Assange to answer 18 counts relating to the release of classified documents in 2010 and 2011. He is accused of conspiring to hack into US military databases, and publishing confidential information relating to civilian deaths during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
