Through the authority of news, my name's Mary Costa-Kiedas. Remarkable news this week, with former US officials corroborating the CIA surveillance of Julian Assange and plots to kidnap or murder him. Activity first testified in the extradition trial by former employees of the security company guarding the Ecuadorian embassy. We also recently saw the main prosecution witness for the broadened scope of hacking allegation charged in the second superseding indictment completely discredit the beefed up charge by admitting that he lied to prosecutors. We'll look at what impact these new developments might have on the upcoming US appeal against Judge Barraza's decision not to extradite the Australian journalist publisher and editor of WikiLeaks, the organization termed by the former CIA director and secretary of state Mike Pompeo as a hostile intelligence service. Now just to refresh our memory, there are five grounds to the US appeal that the judge made errors in law in her application of the test under section 91 of the extradition act that's the humanitarian provision as to whether it would be oppressive to extradite Julian on the grounds of mental health that the judge ought to have notified the US of her provisional view to enable them to offer assurances to the court that as the defense's principal psychiatric witness misled the judge on a material issue, his knowledge of the identity of Julian's partner that his evidence sought to be ruled inadmissible because he was not an impartial witness or his testimony should be given more appropriate weight against the prosecution's two wholly independent medical experts that she earned in her overall assessment of evidence regarding Julian's risk of suicide and the US has indeed provided assurances responsive to the judge's specific findings assurances that he would not be held under Sam's conditions or at ADX unless he does something else that warrants it in the meantime and that the US would agree to transferring him to Australia to serve out his sentence. I'd like to welcome our six panelists tonight, Alexander McQuarris, an editor at the Duran and formerly a duty lawyer at the Royal Courts of Justice for 12 years. Alexander is a regular analyst on CN News. Bill Hogan from the Doctors for Assange Group. He was a physician and professor of health outcomes and biomedical informatics at the University of Florida. Lisa Johnson, a clinical psychologist who helped launch the Doctors for Assange Group in 2019 and has been writing about psychological aspects of Julian's persecution for some years now. Julian Hill, a member of the Australian Parliament and Labor Party, is also a member of the Bring Assange Home parliamentary group which now has 29 members including the leader of the Labour Party of the Opposition. Alison Bronowski, a former diplomat, academic writer and author who is acting chair of Australians for War Powers Reform and Alison's been a long-time defender of WikiLeaks and Julian's father, John Shipton. After we hear from our panelists, we'll be going to discussion so please enter your questions in the chat function as they occur to you. Let's go to Alexander first. Alexander, please give us your assessment of how the appeal will go and in particular, the indisputable parallels or what appear to be indisputable parallels with the Dan Ellsberg prosecution. Will the High Court accept this additional evidence of CIA malfeasance and is it likely to lead to Julian being released? Please unmute yourself, Alex. You're muted. Can you hear me now? Yes, that's better, thank you. My apologies. So first of all, the High Court has enormous discretion whether they hear new evidence or not and this is new evidence. I think they should certainly hear this new evidence because the evidence that we are hearing about, all this information we're getting about what the CIA was up to is first of all directly relevant to the whole question of his extradition and it should have been disclosed by the US authorities at the trial before Baritza. Now to recap, the British government, Britain, does not extradite people to countries where they are at serious risk, whether you know life or health or whatever. That's well-established law, that's foundational law. What we now learn is that not only was the government that is now seeking a St. Julian's extradition very persistent in getting him and monitoring him all the time, but a powerful agency of that government, the Central Intelligence Agency, was conducting covert operations against him. They were doing so on the basis that it was his organization was an intelligence agency and they were prepared to go to extraordinary lengths.  So this says to me that he should absolutely not be extradited to the United States. Moreover, though he should not in theory look at this new evidence at an appeal, this evidence was not disclosed to the court by the US authorities which it should have been and therefore for that reason I think it can be and ought to be considered by the court at the forthcoming hearing. I will be very surprised indeed, very astonished indeed if there is an application made to consider this evidence and if that application is not granted. So we will see what happens as I said they have wide discretion in that field that certainly I think it should be heard and I get to say something else. If this extradition request were being made by the government of any other country and this information had come out about what that country was doing in order to get the person whose extradition it was seeking then I have no doubt at all that the British courts would refuse extradition after these revelations. It is because of the extraordinary position of the United States that there might be that there are these uncertainties and these questions. Thank you very much, Alexander. Are there any other comments you'd like to make in general about the upcoming appeal on any of the other grounds? Yes, I mean this is the problem this is the problematic because what the United States has been allowed to do is to call into question findings by the trial judge about Julian Assange's health and this is really actually very extraordinary and extremely unusual. Generally when a trial judge makes findings of fact when the trial judge decides to accept evidence of an expert an appeal court does not revisit that question and of course the first judge who in the high court granted the United States permission to appeal on various grounds actually excluded that key question of the admissibility or rather the weight of the evidence of the expert who is now being challenged and I have to say the fact that the appeal court then reversed its position that in a complete turnaround and said well we are going to let the US authorities reconsider this all after all. Well that shows to my mind the extraordinary lengths to which the British authorities including the British judiciary are prepared to go to accommodate the US in this extradition case. I cannot imagine that that would have happened in any other extradition case in on appeal other than you know one brought by the United States and that I'm afraid what creates the uncertainty about the whole proceedings if they were prepared to do that with respect to the expert's evidence well one has to worry what else they're going to do with these new evidence that's just appeared you know they might say for example with newspaper gossip we're not going to consider it for that reason even though it's clearly very well founded newspaper gossip and my guess is that it's been leaked by people within the US government precisely because some of them are very unhappy about the way in which this extradition has been conducted and about this campaign against Julian Assange and that's I think an important fact that's a separate issue. So it's it makes one very uneasy that we are looking at an appeal on these grounds reversing a decision of the first judge and it makes one uneasy about how they're going to handle everything but of course now with this new evidence it's becoming more difficult for them I would have thought to just disregard all of this close their eyes so you know and you know we don't see all of this evil if you like we're just going to go ahead and extradite him despite all the clear risks to him risks obviously to his health assurances from the US authorities which can't be relied on and of course assurances from a government which is now known some of its one of its key agencies was actually prepared to take extreme steps of kidnapping and if necessary murder so that's that's where we are now I think in this case that certainly seems to be the main issue at present let's have a look though at the medical grounds more closely Bill Hogan what are your thoughts about the medical grounds of the appeal? It seems to be to me I'm not a lawyer but there the United States is going after the main defense medical expert witness as the primary focus and sort of a Hail Mary pass as we say in American football because that is the evidence that on the basis of which the judge denied the extradition just denied the extradition on the fact that it to do so would be oppressive by means of mental illness and disorders specifically depression so the key witness Dr. Michael Koppelman made a finding that Assange is a significant risk of suicide and that it would not be a rational decision it would be almost compulsive in nature out of his own control and so without that the judge's basis for denying extradition is gone and so if the prosecution can get this defense expert witness testimony thrown out the whole denial of extradition speaking crumbles significantly so Koppelman in his initial filing long before his final report and the hearing of medical evidence occurred withheld his knowledge of Stella Morris's identity in his filing for the court and the prosecution is using that to say that this witness misled the court and therefore failed in his duty and he's he's partial to the defendant and not an objective witness and therefore he should be thrown out however first I want to address one thing that happened at the High Court and I want to address the new revelations by Yahoo News so one thing at the High Court that the prosecution lawyer Claire Dobbin said was that Judge Barrett sir should have interrogated why Koppelman was willing to mislead unquote well she infected that already so we know from Judge Barrett sir's ruling that there is an additional statement by Dr. Koppelman submitted in November 2020 after the extradition hearing occurred as well as an additional statement from Gareth Pierce who's one of another one of Mr. Assange's lawyers dated December 1st and there was therefore detailed further submissions from counsel and writing about this issue so the judge already did that so Dobbin's lying to say that Barrett sir did not in fact interrogate why Koppelman did it and so why Koppelman withheld the identity of Stella because there was serious concerns for her safety and the safety of the children and this these Yahoo News revelations draw that fear and to start relief and provide you know if there was an ample justification before with the news about you you see global and assassination attempts the Yahoo News revelations clarify and amplify just how significant a risk it was uh so the United States unleashed its full force of its counter intelligence against a small journalistic organization that does not have the basis to handle that like a nation-state intelligence service would and of course it wasn't just Assange they wanted to assassinate they wanted to assassinate everybody in the leagues and it wasn't just Assange they wanted to classify as an information broker but they're going after multiple journalists including Len Greenwald and Walter Poitras the other thing is that you know with this intense pressure from the the world's most devastating and dangerous intelligence service in the world it certainly explains why that would lead to Assange's symptoms of severe depression and explains even further the torture that we know exists against Assange it's important to note that Koppelman intended to make full disclosure along with the advent of the pandemic the proceedings got delayed so there was nine months in between his preliminary filing and his well about seven months I would say but January he made his preliminary filing and then in August his full report the the the the medical evidence was supposed to be heard in I believe March and then it got postponed to May and then it got postponed to September because of various issues due to the pandemic so during that don't long delay the and due to the pandemic there was a bail application and it was at the bail application because for bail application you need to say where the prisoner will go and he was going to go with with Stella and so they had to make Stella's identity now so Koppelman was caught up in this weird confluence of circumstances that he had a delay in between when he initially filed and when he came clean and so the the he there was no misleading of the court the judge says he was never on misled there was a full is a full intent to reveal the witness or to reveal Stella and be completely honest about that and Koppelman's evidence is unimpeachable otherwise. There is though the article that was raised to also discredit Koppelman. Yes so there was an article published in 2017 in the British Journal of Psychiatric Bulletin that is a two-pager that's an interview with Koppelman about his intent to spend his retirement getting justice for people who have been wronged and he in particular gave took the testimony and interviewed did medical assessments of Guantanamo prisoners these are British citizens who were held at Guantanamo and returned to Britain at the urging of the British government because of the revelations of torture and the British government rather than try this case and probably at the urging of the United States government who don't didn't want their malfeasance exposed at trial settled the case so there was a settlement of something like 30 million pounds to the British detainees at Guantanamo and and Koppelman was instrumental in that and so the interview was largely on that basis about him but in that article he makes he speaks of Gareth Pierce being exceptional at playing within the system and then he kind of repeats that but leaves out within and says plays the system and so the prosecution says oh he's biased because he wants to play the system against itself and and and so the other thing about this is if you um this article is not properly introduced as evidence even at appeal it's absolutely absurd that they couldn't have found this uh for the original hearing like how did they only now finally suddenly find this article which by the way is in the public domain I didn't have to use NMI university library access to to access this article um so it's completely silly that they couldn't have found this you know it's almost embarrassing I would think for an attorney not to have been able to have found this and introduce it at the original hearing um so this just but what it illustrates is the desperation and the absolute they're throwing absolutely everything at Koppelman that they possibly can and an absolute desperate attempt to attack this eminent expert who the judge um and the prosecution had a full opportunity to hear and cross-examine and his the cross-examination he was withstood magnificently actually thank you thank you for that I'd like to go to Lisa Johnson now Lisa tell us from your perspective what you make of the medical grounds of this appeal um yeah well Bill's absolutely right that it's a desperate attempt to discredit Koppelman and I feel like you know yet again we're at a juncture where the US is really scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and you know prop up their non-existent case prop up their groundless appeal um so you know as Bill said they were taking Koppelman uh on the grounds that he sought to protect Stella and Julian's children from harm um and at the most recent hearing where the grounds for appeal were broadened that was characterized as being a lapse as being biased there are things called criminal criminal procedure rules that you know get a lot of lawyer but I understand that was what was said to be violated um and under those rules expert witnesses need to be impartial and objective so there's an argument that that uh protecting Stella showed that he was impartial not objective should be thrown out and uh they said that Judge Barreza sort of downplayed that too much she said it was understandable human response for they're saying well you know that's not good enough um but all of that is really a mischaracterization of what went on so you know it wasn't a lapse it wasn't biased um and even to call it an understandable human response is it was more than that so in terms of being biased um you know Koppelman submitted two reports one was um at the end of 2019 that was where he didn't that was where he protected the identity of Stella and the children then another one uh the following year just before the September hearings then you know their identities were already known um so during his first report you know to conceal the identities of Stella and the children worked against Julian's interest it worked against the defense case and it even worked against Koppelman's own arguments because he was arguing extradition to the US it poses a very high risk of suicide and he said to the extent that he I'm as certain as any psychiatrist can be that Julian assigned to suicide that's a very strong saving you don't often hear psychiatrists and psychologists say something that you know with that much certainty around suicide and Koppelman has decades of experience he's very senior he's you know former chair of about five psychological bodies on the editorial boards of a bunch of period year journals he's you know right up there uh so why why would he you know and and the fact that Julian has young children and he's in an ongoing relationship with their partner and he speaks to them as often as he can in Belmarsh and that's one of the things that's a protective factor and that later came out as a key protective factor and one of the reasons that extradition would be such a risk is that Julian would be separated from his children and his family so why would Koppelman suppress that when it was in in Julian's interest and the fact that he did really is the opposite of bias it's the height of objectivity um and you know that was more than a human response he was required to do that by his codes of ethics and professional practice you know so psychologists and psychiatrists have code of ethics that they need to abide by so he was both an expert witness and he's also a psychologist and a psychiatrist so he had codes of ethics that he's bound by in each of those areas and as a psychologist and psychiatrist you know we're all required to prevent harm and prevent and avoid acting in a way that can cause harm and being an expert witness doesn't change that um and where children at risk psychologists and psychiatrists are required to pardon me to um the child welfare is paramount always so I'll just read the relevant sections of the ethical codes that Koppelman was bound by so the Royal College of Psychiatrists um with respect to responsibilities of psychiatrists who provide expert opinion to courts there's a duty obviously to form an opinion fairly and honestly about matters relevant to the court however psychiatrists must still pay attention to their medical ethical duties they need to have regard to the person's welfare and to the prevention of harm albeit they are seeing the individual in a context um so those ethical duties that that refers to so that's for expert witnesses the ethical duties of a psychologist and a psychiatrist under the codes of ethics that they're required to prevent serious harm occurring to another person they need to ensure the avoidance of harm in which quote the child's needs are paramount psychologists and psychiatrists should contribute to whatever actions are needed to safeguard children the needs or interests of adults should not be allowed to take precedence ahead of the needs of the child so that's what Koppelman was bound by that's what he abided by um and yes no doubt there was an understandable human response but he was also upholding his ethical responsibilities you know both as an expert witness and as a psychologist and a psychiatrist and as Bill talked about you know he knew at the time what the world knows now that um Julian and his family were under threat you know threats of kidnapping and poisoning and you know any psychologist or psychiatrist worth their salt knows that an entity and that's essentially the prosecution and the prosecution is the US national security state that's the same entity that was talking about kidnapping and poisoning this Jordan's father um and still are set after the um uh the most recent hearing on the appeal that they've been enduring unpublicized threats and intimidation for years so these are things the public doesn't know about but now thanks to Yahoo a lot of even CNN reported on the kidnapping threats and so on um Koppelman knew that um so any psychiatrist knows that any entity that's you know plotting to murder and kidnap a defendant is capable of anything you know so he he had to protect those children he had no choice it wasn't biased it was ethical conduct um so you know I feel that at this point the British judiciary is at a really critical juncture in terms of the credibility um and integrity of the British legal system you know because on the one hand they can stand with the prosecution that's been plotting to kidnap and poison the defendant who's the key witness is a convicted fraudster with a history of child sex abuse they can stand there and seek to discredit a psychiatrist who is upholding his upholding upholding his code of ethics and his you know responsibilities to protect child welfare um or they can uphold an expert witness's right and obligation to um act ethically and I guess at this juncture it's it's no surprise that prosecution would be hostile to ethical conduct but um you know hopefully that's not the case for the British judiciary so you know that's an important thing I think to be aware in terms of Koppelman's testimony um and it's a bit rich also that the defend the prosecution is seeking to discredit Koppelman when uh Koppelman was the only expert witness to assess Julian during the time when he was suffering from severe mental health difficulties when he was in the healthcare wing the other saw him after he'd been moved into general population you know and and um you know he was feeling better as a result um Koppelman saw him 17 times defense witnesses saw him a couple of times for a handful of hours the rates it was very sort of glowing in her description of Koppelman's testimony because it was exemplary it was over you know around a year um he reviewed the prison records extremely thoroughly which the prosecution witness Blackwood didn't um got a lot of that wrong uh Blackwood you know Koppelman took great pains to research um you know background material history previous visits with psychologists and so on Blackwood got into court and just like the first judge at the bail hearing called Julian a narcissist so the prosecution calling Koppelman biased is really the pot calling the Kettle Black which has been something that the prosecution's done all the way through this um I could go on and on I'm aware of time but I mean I think I've said the most important things about Koppelman um I mean one more thing to be said about the um the most recent hearing um the psychological evidence was also mischaracterized by the prosecution the prosecution said that the prosecution expert witnesses disagreed that Julian showed traits of the on the autism spectrum and that's not true they both said that he showed autism traits um there was only one witness who had the expertise to diagnose autism spectrum disorder that was Dealey and he performed a structured interview as you should he has a long long background working with autism he heads up the national autism unit um his published papers on diagnosing autism including and high functioning people which is a very specialized very um you know very difficult area you require a lot of experience and expertise to be able to do that Dealey was the only one with that expertise he's so he's the one that made the diagnosis but the prosecution witnesses did say that Julian showed traits of which is the material issue as far as um as far as suicide risk is concerned so whether he shows those traits so again so essentially elaborating on what Bill said that this is really a desperate attempt scraping the bottom of the barrel to to attack rock solid medical evidence um thank you Lisa um this seems to be clearly a political case you know to to many people other than uh a lot of our politicians in Australia but not um Julian Hill so Julian if I could come to you um the mantra from our foreign minister and um it is that we can't intervene in another country's legal process um why is that not a tenable position in your view and and what will labor do about Julian Assange if they're in office next year um thanks Mary the I think the legal issues have been well covered and I'm not going to delve into them um but I agree with you I think it's an inherently political case and that goes to the core of this issue um I personally I think that the US should have frankly banked their win in the first outcome in that they established to Marsha Grinn but they established every point of principle they were seeking except they didn't get their man they could have banked that point of principle in the precedent that they've said it's it's a terrible precedent um in substance the argues of principle um but accepted the humanitarian grounds and just let it go it's gone on for long enough um but uh it's an inherently political case I suspect sadly that this um issue may never be resolved ultimately through the legal system in the courts if the US lost this they may well try something else at some other time um it's an inherently political case and that's my core point if you leave with nothing else and everyone says politics in a pub so people can go and get a beer whenever they want but if you leave with nothing else that is my core point this is a political case and political crime should never form the basis of extradition um I don't know I'm not a lawyer practicing lawyer that's a terrible law student I sort of got there in the end but that was enough of that um but you know I don't know Alex may have a view whether that's a formal principle but it's an understood principle from my perspective that political crime shouldn't be the basis of extradition um this case is designed to mute whistleblowers and invest in the journalists and have a chilling effect on the reporting um and as I said even the last case outcome so it's a dangerous precedent worldwide that anyone anywhere anytime can be charged by the US government if they publish something that embarrasses them in effect now people shouldn't be prosecuted for their political beliefs or journalistic activities and so therefore I say that this case needs a political resolution between governments in answer to your direct question at the start Maurice Payne Scott Morrison hiding behind trite little throwaway phrases they're not engaging in the substance of the arguments they never have at any point they say Morrison said oh you should face the music what does that mean he's never been convicted of any crime there's no credible evidence put up um Maurice Payne we can't intervene in the legal system of any country well they do that all the time like really no I I help you know the department provides consular assistance at a and a minimal level but we make critiques of the legal system of many countries I've got citizens I was just on a zoom in about issues in Cambodia we make criticisms of all sorts of flawed legal systems on behalf of our citizens or in support of our beliefs so I'll leave it to others to make those criticisms but I think that point the political observation is our government currently is just batting this stuff away because they don't want to engage in the points of principle you know we can talk about them at some point your final question there was what's Labor's position will Anthony Albanese is the opposition leader and alternative Prime Minister of the country has made his statement I asked him a question in caucus I think and he made a clear statement this has gone on for long enough and thinks that the matter should be brought to a close and as many ways that can be achieved I know we've had a bit of criticism from some of our left left comrades out in civil society that are you using ways or words I can't make specific commitments I don't know if we form government we've got a very clear position it was adopted unanimously at our national conference that this should end the circumstances in which that ends depends on the time and what's happening in between now and whether there's a court case afoot and so on but I'm confident that a Labor government will convey our position to the US government hopefully the Biden administration with Elbow as Prime Minister so you know that's that's a clear position from our point of view I moved that resolution at national conference it's was unanimously passed it sets the context for Labor governments to operate within thank you Joanne there seems to be a very simple question that needs to be asked right now by our government and that is that twice now we've heard reports that the CIA plotted what's surveilled and plotted to kidnap or murder an Australian citizen there's been absolutely no comment from anyone in government about that they should at least at the very least shouldn't they be asking the US please explain what's this about is there any truth to this well at the very least Mary you spot on this is not a spy movie you know we're not we're not in a spy movie this is not the James Bond premiere this is real life this is a credible allegation not by some fringe nutty conspiracy theory website this is a credible allegation that has you know sources behind it that the intelligence agency of our biggest ally and security partner was seriously contemplating drawing up plans to murder one of our own citizens in an extraterritorial killing I mean you know it sounds kind of mad when you say it but in the country where our head of state lives you know the foreign queen that's another that's a whole other panel I want to go off on that tangent but I mean this is this is ridiculous she can't just ignore it and pretend it didn't happen it requires a formal discussion with the US government you know I'd be very happy to hear that these are not true these reports are not true or that this was a rogue silly conversation in the previous administration we apologize whatever it was you can't just pretend it didn't happen so yeah I think that the government can and should say and do something it's actually not that hard to get an appointment with the US embassy if you're a politician it's one of the it's not always that easy either but it's not impossible particularly for the government you know like really I organized a delegation for George Christiansen Andrew Wilkie and myself we went down we had a fair hearing the charge a defense we we went in we had a robust discussion I think there was a degree of surprise that we were actually quite civil about it you know we're not we're not crazy we've got a view it's a principal view we explained our view we discussed the view that was relayed back to Washington you know if I can do it as an opposition backbencher I'm quite sure that the foreign minister can get in there to convey the view and ask that important question it's not acceptable countries pretend it didn't happen thanks Julian um the Allison you've had a you've been a long time observer of this case and with the benefit of your experience as a diplomat what's your view on where we're at right now Allison thanks good unmute thanks Mary thanks Mary I um succumbed what um Julian has just said completely it is a political matter it it is not a legal matter Julian is in jail accused of no crime I mean legality is not the point what is going to resolve this thing is some political intervention which Australia has done many times in the past on behalf of people who were actually accused of awful crimes like drug trafficking and child molestation and all sorts of things Julian is accused of nothing and guilty of nothing and there he is in Belmarsh and a successive Australian governments and and prime ministers have turned a blind eye to this the solution has to be political just as it was for instance when John Howard was facing an electoral defeat and he finally went into that for David Hicks thanks for David Hicks and others indeed now what do we have here what is different here the fact is as others have said it's the US that is accusing Julian our great and powerful ally now you would think that given what we've now just given up with August we have surrendered our sovereignty forever according to Scott Morrison forever plus made ourselves a nuclear target plus done all the things that the United States wants us to do you would think that a prime minister could walk in and remind John Biden Joe Biden who his name is and say we've got this man who's locked up and you guys are trotting out all sorts of stuff against him furthermore the CIA has done everything that we've just been discussing and plan to do more against him and his family this is enough we have given you a lot we now want something back thanks is this beyond Scott Morrison to do I I mean I know he takes responsibility for nothing but you would think that given that his chances of winning the next election and the grounds on which he's going to win it are shrinking by the day he might at last do what how did and be induced to go and do this now the letters that we've all sent and your group has sent and everyone who's who supported Julian has sent time and time again are ignored for as long as the politics lasts and that's what we're here for in politics in the park because what happened with David Hicks was that there was a very smart American lawyer representing him who made a terrific impact here people rose up and said this is enough now how can I'm asking how can we get the Australian public to that position I mean Julian's friendship group is a very good start but we need the pressure of people that the public behind it and we don't get it from the mainstream media and this is the difference between now and David Hicks's case because the mainstream media picked it up they realized that that that Howard was vulnerable they saw this as an issue and they talked it up now it's not being talked up because you and I know people who say oh Julian this bit too recently and you start Julian 101 with people as as Cathy you know Katelyn Johnson has done time after time on her blog and spilled it all out 15 or 20 of the allegations against Julian all of which she quite rationally dispenses with this is the kind of political groundswell that we need now thanks to politics in the pub for helping us maybe get along with it but the main question for Morrison is if he won't do it why won't he for an Australian citizen accused of nothing guilty of nothing and all it requires is his intervention to do it he could even profit from it politically if he had the guts the only other I have only a couple of other tiny things to mention that others haven't one is I don't know what's happened to the Spanish court case about the investigation of their security who was of course supplying their stuff to the CIA as we all know that court case I understand was going on in Spain I haven't heard the results of that maybe others know secondly the and and this is probably for Lisa more than anybody else if you are in jail and there are large numbers of COVID cases in your jail let me just say that in Australia and the rates of infection with COVID-19 are 10 times in Australia 10 times that of the outside population imagine what it is in London where their infection rate is so much higher than ours how can and this then becomes legal doesn't it how can the British justice system expose Julian to that kind of risk when he is in their custody and could die we know what they want don't we but how can the justice system tolerate this that's my other question thank you thank you thank you Alison before we go you've raised a number of interesting questions that we we do need to address before we go to you John I wonder if Alexander you might comment if you can on what the latest is on the CIA the Spanish case if you know could you unmute your microphone Alexander yes yes sorry thank you I don't I don't very much know about the state of the Spanish case but I'm going to make a confident assumption that it is ongoing and is working its way through the Spanish legal system because I am sure that if there'd been a decision we would all know about it I mean I find it very difficult to imagine that it would just pass by the radar un unnoticed if I may say can I make one a few very quick observations about some of the things people have said indisputably this is a political case this is not disputed in fact the tradition in Britain is that we never extradite people in political cases but in this case the judge decided that there should be an exception because though the extradition treaty between the United States and Britain says that we do not extradite people to the United States on political charges the extradition act which brought that treaty into law in Britain omitted that phrase something which is apparently consciously done by the Blair government into in order to make it possible to extradite people who were involved in terrorist acts so this is again another violation of our political and our legal traditions this is a profoundly political case the US at one point tried to get away from that which is what all those hacking allegations were all about and as has been absolutely rightly said those hacking allegations have essentially collapsed with the evidence of the witness the key witness who was making them now absolutely discredited and the second point about professor Coleman is of course there's no question at all about his professional competencies nobody is saying that he's not a person fit and capable of reaching a view about the kind of issues that he gave evidence about the the only issue that has brought his evidence into any question is something that the judge herself was fully aware of that he took steps that he felt were appropriate and which Lisa says he was ethically bound to do in order to safeguard children so this is just a few quick points that I wanted to make I agree with every point that people make thank thank you Alex just one thing just on the on the last point you made it would be of course disastrous if Copleman's evidence was regarded as inadmissible by the High Court what would what would take precedence the criminal procedures code or the professional ethics code I would have thought the professional ethics code actually um in this I mean I cannot imagine that the court would ask a professional person to act contrary to their ethical code in order to give evidence to the court and but the point is my opinion anyway is moot because the court was not deceived the judge knew exactly what had happened she heard his evidence she heard him under cross examination she was able to weigh his evidence against that of other witnesses she was familiar with the objections that the of that the US authorities were making and she said well in spite of all of that I found him a convincing and credit credible witness his evidence appears to be corroborated by other facts so therefore I will go along with it and that's something every judge is entitled to do and I'm just staggered I'm just I'm really concerned about the fact that it's now being put in question in this appeal process it's one of the things about this appeal it's the single thing about this appeal process which makes me most uneasy and which makes me uneasy about how they intend to approach this whole thing I do hope that the judges understand ultimately what their responsibilities are I suppose much as I think I get to say about that thank you Alexander John will come to you you of course along with Stella are closest to Julian to his lawyers to his supporters so we're very keen to hear from you today thank you Mary um well just a couple of things to say one is that it's the manipulations of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Department of Justice that ensured that the entirety of the focus now is on Julian's character in his psychology and they've also brought in Stella into the into the examination court this is compared to the Himalaya of crime and the benefits brought to the public in the United Kingdom and in the West by the exposure of those crimes on those benefits are clear Afghanistan is now never withdrawn Iraq war is over Guantanamo Bay is on the cusp of being closed those the revelations brought by Wigili and Chelsea Manning have worked their way through the body politic and as a consequence the people have removed support from governments in pursuing those wars the scandals of course will continue to manifest themselves over the coming years but the public even have invented amongst themselves a name endless wars all over the United States it's set all the time the support for the wars has been removed the benefits of those leaks are tremendous a gift to people right through Australia United Kingdom Afghanistan Iraq Middle East and the United States the focus being changed to Julian's psychology in itself is a scandal what is to do with this Julian coming to the end actually what it has to do with the extradition is not nothing whatsoever also I'd make the point that professor Coppelman had 17 visits over a period of three months plus spoke to me a couple of times we met and then spoke on the phone a couple of times other members of the family time that is if there's to be a re-evaluation of Julian psychology via a psychiatrist there's another year involved before hearing can be put together about that that in itself is another scandal next melza professor no melza professor of law at glass international law at glasga university and the rapper toronto torture and unusual punishment is put together a report an exacting report on the procedural irregularities extending from sweden brought itself into disgrace in this matter into the united kingdom brought the crown prosecuting service and its administration of justice into disgrace brought the australian government and its ethereal standing above these circumstances of the prosecution and persecution of an australian citizen brought themselves into disgrace in every world forum the standing of australia is a multinational multinational relationships between nation emerges from the uni power the standing in able to be to enable us to negotiate with other powers and other states is brought to ruin because we're just a bay we're just a bay so we're not significant next the united nation's working group on arbitrary detention 17 professors of law examining julian circumstance and declaring that julian was arbitrarily this is 2017 arbitrarily detained and ought to be released and compensation paid another report came out in february 2018 asserting strongly the previous report of the working group that report derided and he derided in the united kingdom ignored in australia the in the hearing in january sorry the in the hearing in september professor mills melzer was just called nils melzer and political dear tribe when in fact every single point in the report is the abrogation of non-derogatable human rights and procedural irregularities committed by the crown prosecuting service and the swedish prosecuting authority in a documented conspiracy this report is in the hands of the australian government i know this because our catalyte tranters fo is have the report before us four pages on either side of the report are completely redacted so the scandal which embraces australia and its relationship with the united kingdom and the and the united states a scandal which embraces disgrace brought upon the swedish prosecuting authority a scandal which brings disgrace to the crown prosecuting service a scandal which this brings disgrace to the department of justice and a further if they need if they need any more scandals to the cia and its involvement with ambassador german ambassador the united state german ambassador richard grannell and uh and uh i can't bring his name to mind he's died recently but as if they need any more sheldon adelson sheldon adelson yes um an unpleasant man unfortunately but so it goes that this to the way out of this is clear to everybody that the australian government use the facilities of negotiation and the imagination skill diplomats to work a method of face saving if you can i mean it's just it's really easy it's how to go about a face saving for the crown prosecuting service and the swedish prosecuting authority and the department of justice will be a rural test of australian diplomats however the possibility is there that that's uh i just finish off um my my rather worked up and vigorous comments and uh i'd say that we'll be over there for the hearing on the 27th and 28th the support in australia is magnificent everywhere i go i get a good reception the parliamentarians are generous with their time and with their with their advisors and staff the the people themselves are welcoming and these tours that i undergo go right up and down the the east coast of australia furthermore that was the same in 17 cities in the united states in the same in in Germany in five cities and the same in france in paris and leon the same in madrid the same in oslo in norway the same in surprisingly stockholm similarly in the united kingdom the reception and the strength of the support of julian is very strong every single politician parliamentarian and the diplomat in the world would benefit vote wise by supporting julian you might lose two votes you'll get 10 it's the odds to nothing i cannot understand why the australian government and other governments don't put their shoulder behind this and solve it because it brings benefits it's already brought huge benefits to populations throughout the world and it will bring benefits to the administration sorry to governmental administration by showing that governments can support and can act in cases where clear injustices are seen thank you thank you john thank you i i'd like to ask you um a question about the appeal one of the grounds of the appeal and that is the assurances what's your response to the assurances that the united states has offered that julian won't be held in the conditions that his um doctor's fear he will and lawyers fear he will and that he won't be going to adx and he'd be a and he'll be able to come back to australia to see out a sentence well they're complete rubbish you know there's now 12 years moving towards 13 years they just want to murder him that's all they want him dead they discuss means of doing it they've found a legal means of doing it it's 12 years it's no joke that they're pursuing julian assigned in the embassy in fact they conspired to keep julian in the embassy that's the crown prosecuting service and the swedish prosecuting authority the crown prosecuting service paul claus told the swedish prosecuting authority to bugger off it's just documented we have the evidence there you shake it under marie spain's nose my god there was also evidence given at the extradition trial that the united states has offered such assurances to the united kingdom in the past and reneged upon them well you know the european court see the thing is you can't you can't refuse the assurances between states they must be clear to us they can't say no your assurances aren't worth too bob they have to find something else the european court of human rights in a hearing was given assurances by the united states in a particular case of extradition the person the assurances naturally have to be accepted they were accepted the person was extradited to the united states and put in sands especially administrative measures you know the insurances are are worthless but between states they must be accepted i i understand that so other means have to be found by the diplomats by the lawyers and by the administrators and then enforced by the politicians thank you john i'll just take one or two questions i think we've got more time for but before i do that there's a there's a request here for julien hill there's some interest in the declaration by the australian labor party of support for julien at the conference and and we're being asked for the link so could you put it up on your social media where you know whether it's twitter and facebook etc and and perhaps also give it to um consortium news pass it on to the producers here um so that that you know we can make that available to whoever's sure i'll pass it on to um kathy and consortium news that's probably the easiest spot it was a resolution at the conference um so it's probably best if i just send it and they can create the link it's um uh our website's not fantastic it's probably the best way of putting it so there'll be a great big boring book of the whole platform and the resolutions form part of that but i don't think there's a separate link so i won't burden you with hundreds of pages i'll send it to kathy great thank you thank you um and a question for alexander if he's still there there alex yep okay i was it has to do with the uh this new um evidence which isn't actually evidence yet they're new their reports so how how has it turned into evidence i'm assuming uh julian's lawyers are now trying to um establish contact with these individuals to see whether they will are they prepared to um testify or to provide witness statements and to request that their um identities remain uh that they remain anonymous as the two um two uh security guard former security guard and you know employees did in the spanish case that would be the only way the court could consider that that evidence i assume i think well i there's going to be real problems creating this into evidence in the sense that all we have at the moment is newspaper gossip but what well not newspaper gossip and media reporting but they're going to say the americans are going to say this is gossip now the point to say is you can do this in various ways one of them to do one of them is to do what uh julian and uh was saying earlier on the program is you can ask you can go directly to the us authorities and you can say is this evidence true and you know if it is true why was it not disclosed previously at the court hearing before baritza and that's the obvious first step to take now of course the us authorities may decline to answer are they're not noticed up to now denying the this evidence but other than that i mean if you can't get it from the united states you can also get to the british authorities because the british authorities were also to some extent implement implicated in some of their some of these activities and you can ask them to and you can get your politicians to ask those questions people you know like mps we have mps in britain who also supports julian and who would undoubtedly be willing to make those sorts of requests and again i think this is an entirely appropriate question at this time in legal proceedings and that's obvious an obvious first step if you can't get past that point well i'm afraid you have to get in touch with yahoo news find exact try and establish contact as you said with the people who are involved and if you can't do that either you can still it seems to me come along to the court and say to the court well that we're getting all these extremely concerning reports they're very concerning indeed they are consistent with the fact that this is a political case which is what we discussed previously it is consistent with the fact that mr osange was placed under all this sort of surveillance given that this is so given that these reports are appearing we cannot press ahead and extradite julian osange until this issue has been fully clarified and we understand exactly what happened because if we do then of course there are all kinds of risks which these reports appear to give credence to so you can point that out to the high court and you can ask the high court to itself make orders they can actually give the court can give orders for information to be provided and all kinds of things can be done and i'm sure they are being done just one final question alexander from for you from me what happens if um take the worst-case scenario do uh that the u.s win this appeal what's the next step i understand that there is an appeal to the supreme court of the united kingdom and that's going to be an enormously fraught appeal because obviously it's not usual for the supreme court to intervene in cases but it can do whether there's an important issue of law or public policy i would say obviously there is in this case and and that would we will see what happens i mean but there would be one last route of appeal if that didn't work you could still go back to the government and apply ask them to reconsider because of course they have to agree but there would there would still be a further appeal to the supreme court of the united kingdom so if the defense want to cross appeal they don't do that to the high court they go to the supreme court no it a cross appeal would be to appeal against those parts of baritza's judgment with which they disagree now that's been talked about a lot it's uncertain to me whether it's actually going to happen they would need permission to do it i think but they could argue that in the appeal that's going to happen before the high court at the end of this month if they lose that hearing then they can cross appeal they can appeal further to the united kingdom supreme court and as i said that would be an enormously involved legal battle with some of the most powerful legal minds in britain coming to to look at this but it's not easy to get the supreme court to involve itself in cases of this kind thank you and don one final question to you um this clearly could you know go on for decades longer and it is a political case what can the public do to put pressure on our politicians to take action well what we do we've found very very effective is in a in an electorate take up a petition among your friends who are in the electorate and present it to the parliamentaries that represent your electorate this is very effective because it gives the parliamentarian an understanding that there's a series of votes there that he can get by making simple support statements for dual innocence as to the uh governance of australia demonstrating support for a person an australian citizen who is the has has who has the burden of injustice placed upon them it gives cohesion in the body politic and consequently support to government policy it makes it easier to govern so there's every advantage in just doing the simplest thing is taking up a petition within your electorate even if it's only five people or six people of those people who are part of the electorate and give it to the local parliamentarian he will benefit immensely you benefit immensely and the the structure is so beautiful is that the parliamentarian takes the concerns into the sovereign majesty of parliament and asks parliament asks sorry asks the executive to act in the interests of the sovereign majesty of parliament so it revitalizes parliament every step of the way it brings great benefits to the people the parliamentarians and of course to join thank you john i think we also need some questions put to the prime minister in parliament about this um i'd like to say thank you to all our panel for being part of this and um and john everybody's thoughts and and many efforts i hope will will be with julian over the coming well for as long as it takes for as long as it takes the appeal is scheduled for the 27th of october the next installment in this very long saga of this really what is the foremost press freedom case of our times i'll be live tweeting the appeal if i'm granted access along with other journalists i heard concerning report today from a colleague in europe that they have yet to decide whether to grant access to journalists to report on the video link so i'll be um we'll waiting to hear about that um but if we do i can assure you lots of this will be will be uh letting you know how things are going in in detail thank you for joining us and thanks to politics in the pub and consortium news