The approval of Julian Assange’s extradition is not only morally wrong, it appears to be wrong in law, and serious questions should be asked of the UK Home Secretary, as well as the Australian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister and the former incumbents of those positions.

This follows a barely reported revelatory exchange between the lawyer representing the UK Home Secretary James Cleverly and Justice Jeremy Johnson in Julian Assange’s High Court Appeal against his extradition reported in Pearls and Irritations last week.

The hearing was plagued by audio problems for journalists, and in response to my enquiries seeking confirmation of this conversation reported by independent journalist Mohamed Elmaazi, I was told by one journalist who was aware the conversation was taking place that it was spoken too softly and too rapidly for her to discern what was being said. Since then, a lawyer present has confirmed the exchange.

Here is the discussion reported by Elmaazi. Bear in mind as you read it that the former UK Secretary of State Priti Patel approved Assange’s extradition, it is still in place under James Cleverly, and that extradition from the UK is barred if there is a risk the person may face the death penalty.

“If the appellant is extradited,” Johnson asked, “is there anything to prevent amending the charges of aiding and abetting [a leak]?”

Ben Watson KC, who was instructed to represent the U.K. Home Secretary, replied, “The short answer is no.”

“Do you accept that those........

© Pearls and Irritations