5 ms·

I really hope people don’t take from this that the U.K. legal system is being applied in a biased way. The laws themselves may be wrong — and that’s a matter fo

by genmon 6y ago

I really hope people don’t take from this that the U.K. legal system is being applied in a biased way. The laws themselves may be wrong — and that’s a matter for government. But these write-ups do tend do suggest that the laws are being misapplied through manipulating the process. I’m not a lawyer, but I am in the UK and I do know people who are lawyers so I’ve talked about their court work with them. From what little I know, the processes (the backs and forth, the judgements, and arguments over procedure) are all typical.

StavrosK 6y ago
But this can also mean that laws in the UK are typically applied in a biased way. The fact that it's typical (although I don't think it is) doesn't make it unbiased.
k1m 6y ago
There have been questions raised about the judge in this case: * As British judge made rulings against Julian Assange, her husband was involved with right-wing lobby group briefing against WikiLeaks founder - https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-09-04-as-british-judge-made-rulings-against-julian-assange-her-husband-was-involved-with-right-wing-lobby-group-briefing-against-wikileaks-founder/ https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-09-04-as-britis... * UK government refuses to release information about Assange judge who has 96% extradition record - https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-07-31-uk-government-refuses-to-release-information-about-assange-judge-who-has-96-extradition-record/ https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-07-31-uk-govern...
- Traster 6y ago
  Yes, silly questions have been raised. Oh look, a judge is married to a life-long politician - and shock horror a Tory Lord has links to a Tory think tank. Shock horror, the UK tends to comply with extradition requests. These questions are just stating perfectly normal facts of life in obtuse and alarmist ways.
  - k1m 6y ago
    I'd urge people to read the articles and judge for themselves if they are "silly questions".
  - useriousbro 6y ago
    Or questioning whether the status quo is a good thing? You think there are not enough competent people out there for us to avoid conflicts of interest? As for complying with extradition requests is this sort of abuse of power not the kind of thing the UK wanted to "tweak" the human rights act for? we (the UK) seems to have participated in these war crimes to a certain extent, i actually have hopes for a better future with a fairer society - so yes I do want to people to call out conflicts of interest and yes i do want people to keep re-justifying their actions through modern morals and context rather than being caught up in nostalgia and nationalism.
    - Traster 6y ago
      I don't think there's a person on earth that could serve as the judge that would satisfy the people commentating on Assange's hearings short of sticking a wig on Assange himself. There is no conflict of interest and frankly, the standard set by this claim of a conflict absolutely would disqualify every single qualified judge in the UK. As for the extradition requests, of course that's how it works. The UK finds whether the case is more or less fine and then it's off to the US to actually try the case. Why? Because it's not a good idea for the UK to be ruling on US law and they're a close ally with similar laws.
      - useriousbro 6y ago
        okay, so giving him 50 weeks (i think it was) in maximum security for a crime that normally gets a fine. holding him in solitary confinement (against human rights act) and not allowing him to meet with his lawyers/solicitors is how it should work? I personally think that we can find people with less conflicts of interest - but in the UK we traditionally don't as we are normalised to the concentration of power that exists in a heavily class based society. Would love to hear your comments on the article i linked to (https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...) as it seems a bit tautological to just say it must be right because thats what the UK machinery does. edit: Apologies i need to stop commenting as the article was linked in another response - its a VERY good read though and i think that when it comes to a potentially precedent setting situation like this the specifics are vitally important.
polytely 6y ago
I would love it if a laywer could explain to me how the following is not applying the legal system in a biased way. From the article: >The cross-examinations showed the weakness of the thirty minute guillotine adopted by Baraitser, with really interesting defence testimony cut short, and then unlimited time allowed to Lewis for his cross examination. This was particularly pernicious in the evidence of Mark Feldstein. In James Lewis’ extraordinary cross-examination of Feldstein, Lewis spoke between five and ten times as many words as the actual witness. Some of Lewis’s “questions” went on for many minutes, contained huge passages of quote and often were phrased in convoluted double negative. Thrice Feldstein refused to reply on grounds he could not make out where the question lay. With the defence initial statement of the evidence limited to half an hour, Lewis’s cross examination approached two hours, a good 80% of which was Lewis speaking. >Feldstein was browbeaten by Lewis and plainly believed that when Lewis told him to answer in very brief and concise answers, Lewis had the authority to instruct that. In fact Lewis is not the judge and it was supposed to be Feldstein’s evidence, not Lewis’s. Baraitser failed to protect Feldstein or to explain his right to frame his own answers, when that was very obviously a necessary course for her to take. >Today we had two expert witnesses, who had both submitted lengthy written testimony relating to one indictment, which was now being examined in relation to a new superseding indictment, exchanged at the last minute, and which neither of them had ever seen. Both specifically stated they had not seen the new indictment. Furthermore this new superseding indictment had been specifically prepared by the prosecution with the benefit of having heard the defence arguments and seen much of the defence evidence, in order to get round the fact that the indictment on which the hearing started was obviously failing. >On top of which the defence had been refused an adjournment to prepare their defence against the new indictment, which would have enabled these and other witnesses to see the superseding indictment, adjust their evidence accordingly and be prepared to be cross-examined in relation to it. As a layman (who admittedly knows nothing about the UK legal system) this looks like they are stacking the deck against Assange.
- genmon 6y ago
  I guess what I'm saying is this all feels quite ordinary. The judge will have the written outline arguments, and will be focusing on the parts that need greater interrogation. And they will also be juggling various factors -- there's limited court time; letting the case drag on is a potential source as injustice too; etc. On top of that, each side will be looking for advantages within the constraints of allowed legal procedure. All of these will contribute to what's being seen on the day. If the judge missteps according to procedure, they're open to having the judgement appealed, so they're highly motivated to apply the rules correctly. I'm not saying that the outcome is just, or that the laws themselves are ok. But the procedure seems ordinary to me, a lay person, and if there _are_ problems with it, they will be technical and unlikely to be spotted in an article like this.

by genmon 6y ago

StavrosK 6y ago

But this can also mean that laws in the UK are typically applied in a biased way. The fact that it's typical (although I don't think it is) doesn't make it unbiased.

k1m 6y ago

There have been questions raised about the judge in this case: * As British judge made rulings against Julian Assange, her husband was involved with right-wing lobby group briefing against WikiLeaks founder - https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-09-04-as-british-judge-made-rulings-against-julian-assange-her-husband-was-involved-with-right-wing-lobby-group-briefing-against-wikileaks-founder/ https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-09-04-as-britis... * UK government refuses to release information about Assange judge who has 96% extradition record - https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-07-31-uk-government-refuses-to-release-information-about-assange-judge-who-has-96-extradition-record/ https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-07-31-uk-govern...

Traster 6y ago
Yes, silly questions have been raised. Oh look, a judge is married to a life-long politician - and shock horror a Tory Lord has links to a Tory think tank. Shock horror, the UK tends to comply with extradition requests. These questions are just stating perfectly normal facts of life in obtuse and alarmist ways.
- k1m 6y ago
  I'd urge people to read the articles and judge for themselves if they are "silly questions".
- useriousbro 6y ago
  Or questioning whether the status quo is a good thing? You think there are not enough competent people out there for us to avoid conflicts of interest? As for complying with extradition requests is this sort of abuse of power not the kind of thing the UK wanted to "tweak" the human rights act for? we (the UK) seems to have participated in these war crimes to a certain extent, i actually have hopes for a better future with a fairer society - so yes I do want to people to call out conflicts of interest and yes i do want people to keep re-justifying their actions through modern morals and context rather than being caught up in nostalgia and nationalism.
  - Traster 6y ago
    I don't think there's a person on earth that could serve as the judge that would satisfy the people commentating on Assange's hearings short of sticking a wig on Assange himself. There is no conflict of interest and frankly, the standard set by this claim of a conflict absolutely would disqualify every single qualified judge in the UK. As for the extradition requests, of course that's how it works. The UK finds whether the case is more or less fine and then it's off to the US to actually try the case. Why? Because it's not a good idea for the UK to be ruling on US law and they're a close ally with similar laws.
    - useriousbro 6y ago
      okay, so giving him 50 weeks (i think it was) in maximum security for a crime that normally gets a fine. holding him in solitary confinement (against human rights act) and not allowing him to meet with his lawyers/solicitors is how it should work? I personally think that we can find people with less conflicts of interest - but in the UK we traditionally don't as we are normalised to the concentration of power that exists in a heavily class based society. Would love to hear your comments on the article i linked to (https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikilea...) as it seems a bit tautological to just say it must be right because thats what the UK machinery does. edit: Apologies i need to stop commenting as the article was linked in another response - its a VERY good read though and i think that when it comes to a potentially precedent setting situation like this the specifics are vitally important.

polytely 6y ago

I would love it if a laywer could explain to me how the following is not applying the legal system in a biased way. From the article: >The cross-examinations showed the weakness of the thirty minute guillotine adopted by Baraitser, with really interesting defence testimony cut short, and then unlimited time allowed to Lewis for his cross examination. This was particularly pernicious in the evidence of Mark Feldstein. In James Lewis’ extraordinary cross-examination of Feldstein, Lewis spoke between five and ten times as many words as the actual witness. Some of Lewis’s “questions” went on for many minutes, contained huge passages of quote and often were phrased in convoluted double negative. Thrice Feldstein refused to reply on grounds he could not make out where the question lay. With the defence initial statement of the evidence limited to half an hour, Lewis’s cross examination approached two hours, a good 80% of which was Lewis speaking. >Feldstein was browbeaten by Lewis and plainly believed that when Lewis told him to answer in very brief and concise answers, Lewis had the authority to instruct that. In fact Lewis is not the judge and it was supposed to be Feldstein’s evidence, not Lewis’s. Baraitser failed to protect Feldstein or to explain his right to frame his own answers, when that was very obviously a necessary course for her to take. >Today we had two expert witnesses, who had both submitted lengthy written testimony relating to one indictment, which was now being examined in relation to a new superseding indictment, exchanged at the last minute, and which neither of them had ever seen. Both specifically stated they had not seen the new indictment. Furthermore this new superseding indictment had been specifically prepared by the prosecution with the benefit of having heard the defence arguments and seen much of the defence evidence, in order to get round the fact that the indictment on which the hearing started was obviously failing. >On top of which the defence had been refused an adjournment to prepare their defence against the new indictment, which would have enabled these and other witnesses to see the superseding indictment, adjust their evidence accordingly and be prepared to be cross-examined in relation to it. As a layman (who admittedly knows nothing about the UK legal system) this looks like they are stacking the deck against Assange.

genmon 6y ago
I guess what I'm saying is this all feels quite ordinary. The judge will have the written outline arguments, and will be focusing on the parts that need greater interrogation. And they will also be juggling various factors -- there's limited court time; letting the case drag on is a potential source as injustice too; etc. On top of that, each side will be looking for advantages within the constraints of allowed legal procedure. All of these will contribute to what's being seen on the day. If the judge missteps according to procedure, they're open to having the judgement appealed, so they're highly motivated to apply the rules correctly. I'm not saying that the outcome is just, or that the laws themselves are ok. But the procedure seems ordinary to me, a lay person, and if there _are_ problems with it, they will be technical and unlikely to be spotted in an article like this.