Two audiences convened this Tuesday in London to decide whether Julian Assange can further appeal his case at home or whether he should be extradited to the United States. The High Court session opened in London, with hearings already underway to determine the future path of the case.
In a moment of intense public and media interest, Justices Victoria Sharp and Adam Johnson began the proceedings, which are scheduled to continue through Wednesday as they listen to the arguments presented by the Australian journalist’s defense team.
Assange was unable to attend in person due to health reasons, his lawyer Ed Fitzgerald explained, although the court had granted permission for his appearance. The development comes as the United States seeks his extradition on a broad set of charges linked to the publication of classified material via WikiLeaks in 2010 and 2011, a move defended by the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service as representing U.S. interests.
The hearing encountered an initial interruption from technical problems that disrupted journalists’ ability to hear the proceedings in the courtroom, with most issues resolved shortly after they began.
Fitzgerald outlined the grounds for allowing a further appeal, arguing that extradition would threaten his client’s right to a fair trial and freedom of expression, among other rights. He stated that the case involves political motivations and that Assange helped expose serious criminality by publishing truthful, important information of public interest, describing it as standard journalistic practice.
On this point, the defense asked the judges to review a ruling made on June 6, 2023, by a single magistrate, which denied further appeal in the UK and upheld the extradition order to the United States. After hearing from both sides, the magistrates could announce a decision immediately or delay a verdict to a later time.
If permission to appeal is granted and the defense succeeds in addressing unresolved issues from earlier trials, a new appeal in the London Court of Appeal would commence. If the court agrees with the earlier magistrate, the extradition process to the United States would proceed under supervision of the Home Office.
In the second scenario, Assange’s lawyers have indicated they will seek urgent interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights under Article 39 to halt the extradition while a European court appeal is pursued. Such steps would be accompanied by a separate European legal process to challenge the case on human rights grounds.
As the day concludes, observers note that the next steps will hinge on the judges’ assessment of procedural rights, the strength of the evidence, and the potential impact on press freedom and national security debates that have long defined this case. The outcome will shape a landmark moment in the ongoing conversation about international law, journalism, and the balance between public accountability and state secrecy (BBC).