Justice for Julian Assange should be tempered with mercy

Editorial: The WikiLeaks founder is no hero but nor should he be a martyr

We would urge Ms Patel to think again while Mr Assange appeals against the high court’s decision (PA)

Once upon a time, WikiLeaks, the subversive organisation set up by Julian Assange, did some valuable work in the name of openness.

It exposed the Trafigura scandal of the dumping of toxic waste in Africa. From there WikiLeaks moved on to dumping diplomatic secrets online indiscriminately, which mostly embarrassed Middle Eastern leaders who didn’t want their urging of US action against Iran’s nuclear ambitions known. And then WikiLeaks appeared to be entangled in Russian interests, which ended up with its being considered party to interference in the American election – on the side of the authoritarian right.

The above is a paragraph from an editorial in The Independent five years ago. We were resolutely unsympathetic to Mr Assange’s claim to have been unfairly treated by the British and Swedish criminal justice systems. We urged him to face justice over the allegations of rape in Sweden, and considered his self-imprisonment in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to be a form of punishment for his refusal to do so.

Mr Assange claimed that he could not go to Sweden because he would be at risk of extradition to the US. But now the British High Court has ruled that he must be extradited anyway, from Belmarsh prison, where he has resided since leaving the Ecuadorian embassy in 2019.

The court found that extradition would be compatible with Mr Assange’s human rights, including his right to a fair trial and to freedom of expression. Priti Patel, the home secretary, who has the final say in the matter, has signed the extradition order. She argues that she is bound by law to agree to the order unless Mr Assange meets one of the statutory grounds for refusal, which she says he does not. The only plausible ground would seem to be if she felt that the US might start proceedings against Mr Assange for offences other than those listed in the extradition request, but she says she has received undertakings from the US on that point.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

However, home secretaries have refused extradition orders before on what might be thought to have been legally flimsy grounds, and we would urge Ms Patel to think again while Mr Assange appeals against the High Court’s decision.

He has now been imprisoned for 10 years, the first seven being of his own accord, but since then he has been detained for breaking bail and while awaiting extradition. The time limit on the rape charge in Sweden has now lapsed.

There is no further purpose that would be served by sending him to the US to go through a rigmarole of legal vindictiveness. Everyone knows what he did and why, and will have their views on the rights and wrongs of it. If his actions did put the lives of US intelligence sources at risk, there is nothing that can be done about that now.

Justice should be tempered not just with mercy but also with common sense and a sense of proportion. However much he is the author of his own misfortune, Mr Assange has suffered enough. If his appeal fails, Ms Patel should exercise compassion with whatever legal fig leaf the Home Office’s lawyers can find. It is time to let Mr Assange go.