The Round up: Assange’s arrest warrant, victims of human traffickers, and a Convention Right victory for salmon fisherman

18 February 2018 by

Eleanor Leydon brings us the latest developments in rights law.

In The News:

A Senior District Judge has ruled that upholding the warrant for Julian Assange’s arrest is both in the public interest and proportionate, albeit that Assange has already restricted his own freedom for several years. In determining the proportionality of the proceedings the judge had regard to the seriousness of the failure to surrender, the level of culpability at this stage of the proceedings, and the harm caused, including impact on the community.

The argument that the last five years were ‘adequate if not severe punishment’ for Assange’s actions was roundly rejected on both bases. The judge concluded that

When considering the public interest I have regard to the consequences of his failure to appear, one of which is the drain on resources that policing Mr Assange’s choice has caused….I must look at the impact on public confidence in the criminal justice system if Mr Assange is allowed to avoid a warrant for his arrest by staying out of reach of the police for years in conditions which are nothing like a prison.

Assange was found to have enjoyed both due process and substantial freedoms during his voluntarily imposed years at the Ecuadorian Embassy; the observations of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to the contrary were accorded little weight. An opinion produced by the group describing Assange’s situation as disproportionate and unreasonable was held to be based on factual misconceptions. Furthermore, Assange’s stay at the Embassy was not arbitrary on the Working Group’s definition: it was neither inappropriate, unjust, unpredictable, unreasonable, unnecessary nor disproportionate. In finding that Assange enjoyed substantial freedoms, the judge suspected that “If one were to ask one of the men incarcerated in Wandsworth prison whether conditions in the Ecuadorian embassy were akin to a remand in custody, the prisoner would dispute the working group’s assertions.”

The judge further made short shrift of the implication that Assange had shown willingness to cooperate in the course of justice. She concluded that

The impression I have…is that he is a man who wants to impose his terms on the course of justice, whether the course of justice is in this jurisdiction or in Sweden. He appears to consider himself above the normal rules of law and wants justice only if it goes in his favour.

The warrant was upheld, and whether section 6 proceedings are initiated under the Bail Act 1976 will depend on Assange’s circumstances when he is finally produced to the court.

In Other News…

  • Three Home Office whistle-blowers have described the asylum system as a ‘lottery’, with applicants at the mercy of overworked staff making ‘cut and paste’ decisions, and ‘refusal-minded’ decision-makers who take pride in never granting asylum. Staff scramble to meet high turnover targets by using stock paragraphs for refusal minutes, and identikit responses to superficially similar facts: “In effect you aren’t doing things on a case-by-case basis. Say you have someone who has come from Eritrea and deserted the military … you might just say, well, I’ll just sort of cut and paste the decision I did last week.”
  • The Polish President has approved a new law criminalising anyone accusing the Polish nation of participation or complicity in the atrocities committed by Germany during the Holocaust. Whilst the law was initially intended to criminalise the use of the phrase ‘Polish death camps’ to refer to sites like Auschwitz created on Polish-occupied soil, its vague drafting means it could be used to criminalise a far broader range of statements as a threat to the ‘dignity of the Polish Nation.’ The legislation has prompted growing concern about the nationalist narratives emerging from the governing populist party, as well as concerns that the law will produce a ‘chilling effect’ on discussion and understanding of the Holocaust.
  • Lady Hale has again expressed her view that the UK’s courts and judiciary should be representative of its society, and further suggested that this should be achieved through affirmative action rather than positive discrimination. It remains necessary to reassure everybody that the best judges are appointed: diversity should be sought by ‘going out and trying to find the best of underrepresented groups,’ and encouraging talented candidates from less considered areas to apply.

In The Courts:

  • PK (Ghana), R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department: Home Office immigration guidance regarding victims of trafficking failed to give effect to the UK’s obligations under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (“the Convention”). Article (14)(1)(a) of the Convention states that Parties must issue residence permits to victims if their stay is considered “necessary owing to their personal situation”: comparatively, the Home Office guidance indicated that leave to remain should only be granted if personal circumstances were “compelling.” The Court of Appeal upheld the Appellant’s claim that this represented an overly onerous test. More fundamentally, Hickinbottom LJ could not accept the defendant’s submission that Article 14(1)(a) gave the Home Office ‘untrammelled’ discretion; rather, “necessary” must be seen through the prism of the Convention objectives. Accordingly, the relevant policy documents failed to reflect Article 14(1)(a) because they failed to engage with the relevant Convention objectives at all.
  • LMN v Government of Turkey: the extradition of a British prisoner to Turkey would be incompatible with the appellant’s Article 3 right to freedom from torture or inhumane or degrading treatment. The relevant circumstances were twofold: firstly, there was a risk of suicide resulting from the appellant’s struggle with depression and PTSD, and as such a continuing need for medication and healthcare. Secondly, the greatly-increased prison population and prison overcrowding in Turkey following the failed coup of 2016 provided a strong enough circumstance to rebut the presumption that the Turkish state would comply with its international obligations, as a signatory to the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture. On the facts there was insufficient evidence that appropriate healthcare would be provided. Holroyde LJ emphasised that his decision was to be construed as fact-specific, and did not seek to make a more general judgment as to questions which might arise in other extradition proceedings.
  • Mott, R (on the application of) v Environment Agency: Restrictive licensing conditions imposed on a salmon fisherman by the Environment Agency were disproportionate, and in contravention of his rights under Article 1 Protocol 1 of the ECHR. Interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions must not only pursue a legitimate aim in the public interest, the means must be proportionate to the aim and strike a ‘fair balance’ between community interests and the individual’s rights. Here, due to the severity and relative disproportionality of the impact on the appellant, a fair balance had not been struck: such interference was unlawful in the absence of compensation. The case showed exceptional facts: Lord Carnwath reiterated that national authorities have a wide margin of discretion in the imposition of necessary environmental controls.

5 comments


  1. butlincat says:

    Re: this judge’s statement: “is that he is a man who wants to impose his terms on the course of justice,..etc etc” – anyone appealing any judgement made in any court could be branded with that nonsense – it is everyone’s right to question or oppose any judgement made against them by any court – especially a judgement whereby one’s very freedom is in question. Assange should not be punished for questioning or opposing any judgement made against him – something that is clearly happening here.

  2. ‘..upholding the warrant for Julian Assange’s arrest is both in the public interest….’
    Please kindly elaborate on this. Thank you

  3. Guy Roberts says:

    Julian Assange is an arrogant coward who, as the judge rightly said, thinks he is above the law. He hid in the Ecuadorean embassy to escape being tried for some very nasty sex crimes. Pity his poor victims who have been denied the chance to see their alleged rapist punished.

    He’s also decided that he and he alone has the right to decide what the USA and other countries are allowed to keep secret and what they are not. He’s seriously damaged the security of America, Britain and other countries as a result. I really hope this little shit is extradited to America as soon as possible and spends the rest of his life in the Supermax facility in Colorado. Then he can whine and complain as much as he likes – nobody will be listening.

    1. butlincat says:

      what sex crimes? Even the Swedes dropped the charges – please do some research!.

      1. Guy Roberts says:

        The Swedes did NOT drop the charges. The charges could no longer be pursued because Assange was hiding in the Embassy and the time limit to progress the case ran out. So, Butlincat, please do some research yourself! The Swedish prosecutor went out of her way to make it clear that this did not mean that Assange was innocent, merely that he had escaped justice. It’s quite incredible that I am the only contributor to this site who seems to care about the two women that Assange allegedly raped. The Swedish police and the Swedish prosecutor believe that Assange should answer these very serious charges in court. Instead the little coward ran into hiding. Why is Assamge the only sex criminal who should be entitled to evade justice? What about a bit of justice for his victims?

        The judge was absolutely correct. Assange thinks he’s above the law. Like anyone else he has the right to a legal defence and to appeal any judgements made against him. However, he is only willing to face a court on his terms. That’s not how the law works. It applies equally to everyone. Assange deserves no special terms. His freedom is on danger because he’s alleged to have broken the law in the UK, in Sweden and in America. Like all other wanted criminals, the proper place to decide his fate is in a court of law and nowhere else.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: