– a Personal Opinion –
http://IN FULL: Julian Assange makes first public statement since prison release (youtube.com)
- Since becoming a member of PPMI (Progressing Prisoners Maintaining Innocence) some years ago now, the discussions, reflections and conclusions about the definitions of what is innocence or guilt have become some of the most demanding and passionate analyses of my recent existence. I have written previously about a few cases of what is called “miscarriage of justice”, including the staggering scandal of the Establishment versus the Sub-Postmasters, but the case of Julian Assange has really highlighted some other core problems. Given that it is not PPMI’s policy to make judgements about specific guilt or innocence, this document is to be read as purely personal opinion.
- For those, like me more or less, who believe that the roots of the legal system with respect to criminality should have a basis in morality, the Assange case poses many questions. For those who believe that morality is, or should be, universal the fact that what Assange is alleged to have done is deemed criminal in one country but not in another (as in the Libor scandal) poses an almost political dilemma. Those who believe, as I do more or less, that morality is not universal – i.e. that morality can, for example, be determined by cultural tradition, then it must be acceptable that what is determined as legality should vary by geographical location. The problem of extradition law then becomes central to any discussion and the ability of the United States Justice Department to reach beyond its own country borders is, at least, questionable.
- For those who believe that legality has nothing to do with morality – as do many career criminals – and that it is really just a question of social expediency, then one has to ask who decides what is socially expedient and how does that decision get to be made. This latter is a similar problem to that of allowing the Criminal Prosecution Service to decide what is in the “Public Interest”, where there is no generally accepted definition of what is in the “Public Interest”.
- For those who believe that guilt or innocence is determined by legal judgement only, the Assange case highlights the clear contradiction with his belief that he was convicted of “journalism” on the basis of a guilty plea which could be assimilated to the guilty pleas extracted from the Birmingham Six which were judged, on appeal, to have been made under duress. The question in his case, from his point of view, is whether journalism which exposes criminal activity should ever be regarded as a crime, and therefore whether a guilty plea should ever have been possible. The current plans to make companies more responsible for denouncing criminal activity surely support the view, conversely, that even were Assange not a journalist, he would have been OBLIGED to denounce what he suspected to be war crimes.
- In the same vein as the paragraph above, there can be surely few knowledgeable people left, given the recent cases of wrongful conviction, who believe that the jury system in England and Wales is infallible. Moreover, given that there is no obligation for any jury to justify its decisions and that jury error is not an acceptable justification for an appeal, the Establishment clearly wishes to create a presumption of infallibility which seems to me contrary to all lived experience, all the more so since the requirement for jury unanimity was removed in the 1960’s. The fact that juries are undeniably influenced by our “learned friends” – otherwise why would some barristers command such huge fees when compared to their colleagues – should, at least, make us think about issues such as circumstantial “evidence” often placed into the minds of juries prior to the defence having any chance to rebut baseless claims and the illogical reverence given by legal professionals to other members of their profession.
- All that being said, and to revert back to the Assange case as an example, I believe that he is innocent despite having “pled” guilty, that attempts to extradite him were of dubious morality, that accusations of sexual misconduct in Sweden were highly suspicious, that even had he been convicted by a jury his innocence would be maintained and that, in fact, he was actually providing a useful service to humanity. Moreover, the justice systems in the UK and US did not provide justice and, most importantly, the use of the Espionage Act to suppress evidence relating to war crimes should be condemned as a clear breach of human rights. To conclude, I wish to add that even if another law had been found by which Assange could have been convicted and legal process properly conducted, Assange would still not be guilty by my judgement!