
Amnesty International denied access to court in the Assange extradition hearing - k1m
https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306197900289019904
======
cmiles74
Craig Murray has been covering this trial from the public gallery. He
certainly has his opinions and I don't want to get in the weeds on that
account. He did mention that very few people were allowed in the public
gallery, the rest where to sit in a room next door where (he claims) the sound
is difficult to hear.[0]

My understanding at this point is that the public isn't really allowed access
at all. The poor sound quality makes it impossible to understand what is
happening, it's not access in the sense that they can follow the proceedings.
Craig Murray seemed to be saying that Amnesty International was excluded even
from this room. I believe this may be the crux of Amnesty International's
complaint.

"Rather to our surprise, nobody else was allowed into the public gallery of
court 10 but us five. Others like John Pilger and Kristin Hrafnsson, editor in
chief of Wikileaks, were shunted into the adjacent court 9 where a very small
number were permitted to squint at a tiny screen, on which the sound was so
inaudible John Pilger simply left. Many others who had expected to attend,
such as Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders, were simply
excluded, as were MPs from the German federal parliament (both the German MPs
and Reporters Without Borders at least later got access to the inadequate
video following strong representations from the German Embassy)."

[0]: [https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-
in-...](https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-
public-gallery-the-assange-hearing-day-6/)

~~~
pricechild
The number seemed to reduce from his reporting on day 9 but day 10's report
gives a clarification that there's another room with a few more.

~~~
boomboomsubban
He clarified "about ten journalists in total." There's also the room for the
public, presumably another five, and the two for Assange's family. So
seventeen people.

------
harry8
This piece of news has been interpreted by user stevespang. the fact his
comment is now dead and the fact that Amnesty Interntaional are being denied
access to this trial really support his point of view. The comment should not
be dead, to be clear about it.

I disagree in that I still hope it's merely arrogance and exceptionalism by
the UK courts thinking, unlike courts in poorer parts of the world, they are
utterly above reproach in all things and so there is no need for Amnesty
International at the trial of a publisher who has reported and published
evidence of war crimes. For all that arrogance I hope the court will make the
correct decisions according to statute and precedence.

The job that has been done on Assange has been astonishingly effective. People
don't /like/ him enough to notice his rights being removed are precisely their
own rights and are removed for all. I put him with Tony Blair, George Bush
jnr, Hilary, Donald, Boris as someone I would cross the road to avoid having
to talk to - as is my right. It's also my right to note that it matters not at
all in defending the rights of all of these people to fair due process because
even the worst asshole imaginable's rights are yours and mine. Of my list of
assholes above, I think Assange is the only asshole with no evidence to
suggest his actions have actually killed anyone at all. Blair and Bush jnr in
particular deserve fair trials so they can rigorously defend the extremely
prevalent belief that they did kill people, knowingly, making decisions
supported with jusification made in bad faith to enable the actions leading to
the carnage. I would completely support their rights and Amnesty being present
at their trials.

The rule of law and equality before it is the most important thing to ensure
civilisation continues.

~~~
shadowgovt
It reads more like exceptionalism on AI's part.

AI: "We demand access to monitor the trial."

UK: "You are free to monitor the trial as a member of the public."

AI: "No, we demand physical access and the right to a reserved seat to monitor
the trial."

UK: "From the Crown's point of view, you are a public institution and have the
same rank as any other public institution. The auditorium seating is ---->
thataway."

This is not to say that AI having reserved seating to oversee the trial
couldn't be _useful,_ but it's understandable why the UK might choose not to
treat them as a privileged observer.

~~~
mywittyname
>but it's understandable why the UK might choose not to treat them as a
privileged observer.

Sounds more like a justifiable way of minimizing the legal support available
to the defendant, and control the flow of information to the public.

~~~
shadowgovt
They're a charity and a private institution, not a legal arm of the UK, an
oversight organization of the EU, or a division of the UN. They have as much
legal authority as any other private institution.

Not to say that it wouldn't be a good idea for AI to have the privilege of
oversight of any court proceeding in the UK. But I believe such a thing would
have to start as law from the Houses, not the discretion of an individual
judge. If there is precedent to the contrary, I will stand corrected.

~~~
k1m
According to Amnesty, "Amnesty International monitors have gone to Guantanamo
Bay, Bahrain, Ecuador, Turkey, and Hungary, among many others, to observe
trials as officially recognized fair trial monitors." \-
[https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306200278207782913](https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306200278207782913)

I guess it's too much to ask of the UK though.

------
escape_goat
This is a tweet. It is, by itself, misleading. It is about a legal matter. The
thread of tweets it begins is not an analysis of the legal context of the
decision returned to Amnesty International by the judge.

Amnesty International has not been "denied access" to the extradition hearing.
The judge has declined to provide them with special status and guaranteed
access by an AI observer within the courtroom itself. The proceedings will be
broadcast live to members of he press in auxiliary room, where AI is
apparently welcome.

Other comments speculate about various extralegal shenanigans that could occur
in such a situation. Information about that might make up a good article, an
informative article, that I might be glad to read on HN. However I already
have a place where I can indulge in soapboxing in response to tweets, it is
called Twitter, and I am not sure that providing redundancy for this activity
is a good use of HN.

~~~
k1m
> The proceedings will be broadcast live to members of he press in auxiliary
> room, where AI is apparently welcome.

They are not welcome: "Denied both" \-
[https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306234552088768512](https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306234552088768512)

~~~
shadowgovt
But that interpretation of Julia's tweet contradicts the snippet of text she
shared (I assume from the judge) that clarifies they are welcome the same as
any other public member.

It seems they are not _exceptionally_ welcome. Or unwelcome. First-come,
first-serve.

[https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306197900289019904/p...](https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306197900289019904/photo/1)

~~~
k1m
You don't see a problem when a legal hearing that's been criticised as
"undermining of due process and the rule of law" by the International Bar
Association only offers a tiny number of hard-to-get seats to the public and
then asks Amnesty International to compete with them on a first-come, first-
serve basis?

From the Amnesty tweet thread: "The general public has a right to the few
seats in the public gallery; trial monitors should not be competing with the
public to secure a seat that belongs to the public-at-large." \-
[https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306198935816613889](https://twitter.com/JuliaHall18/status/1306198935816613889)

~~~
shadowgovt
Trial monitors are the public-at-large. If they want a special designation, I
believe that's a process that starts with a law from the Houses, not the whim
of a single trial judge. Otherwise, it adds burden to all trial judges to have
to decide who's a "trial monitor" at their discretion.

I'm happy to stand corrected if there's precedent to the contrary.

~~~
k1m
Well, Amnesty do not think that their trial monitors should be treated as
"public-at-large", otherwise I doubt they'd be concerned by this development.
They've stated that they've observed trials before in other countries without
trouble. Shouldn't the onus be on you to prove that they're wrong on this?

I found this in one of their documents:

"Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have for many
years sent observers to significant political trials. The acceptance of
international trial observers (whether sent by foreign governments or by non-
governmental organizations) has arguably become an international legal norm.
The practice is well established and accepted within the international
community." \-
[https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/156000/pol3000219...](https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/156000/pol300021998en.pdf)

You write:

> Otherwise, it adds burden to all trial judges to have to decide who's a
> "trial monitor" at their discretion.

I'm sure if the judge in the Assange case was facing an influx of trial
monitors and finding it hard to decide which ones to let in, she would have
made that clear. She hasn't said anything of the sort.

~~~
shadowgovt
The onus isn't on me; it's on Amnesty International.

Nor am I the judge; the judge in the Assange trial is.

------
nickt
Craig Murray’s notes from the public gallery make for some incredible reading
[https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-
in-...](https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/your-man-in-the-
public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-10/)

~~~
elliekelly
This exchange made me laugh. Cherry picking evidence of cherry picking:

> James Lewis QC: You were just fishing about for something, omitting details
> which counter your opinion.

> Eric Lewis: There is a huge amount of data, including from the US Bureau of
> Prisons. You just picked out one caveat of one report.

> James Lewis QC: Please keep your answers concise.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Reminds me of an exchange from _Breaking Bad_.

> Who wants to go next? No judgements, guys. Just say anything and everything
> that's on your mind.

> I just keep asking myself, "Why did this happen?" If there's a God and all,
> why does He allow all those innocent people to die for no reason?

> Keep it secular, honey.

------
webmaven
Given the poor quality (to the point of utter uselessness) of the audio and
video links provided by the court for "public access", AI's objection is
justified.

I hope that one or more folks actually in the room are surreptitiously
recording the proceedings so they can be leaked later.

------
danielmg
No they haven't. They just won't make special provision for them.

Is there any recognition in UK law for this role?

Can they not watch the same feed as the media?

~~~
harry8
I believe the issue is that there is a very limited number of public spaces so
its elbows out in the scramble for all who want to be there to get them, then
things have a way of going wrong so that official observers are, quite
accdidentally, shut out from observing. In some countries suddenly a number of
off duty policemen decide they want to have those seats for themselves and
arrest anyone who doesn't back down when barged out of the way. Of corse it
needn't be people as reputable as policemen for it to be organised to occurr
that way.

In any case the idea is that Justice must not only be done it must be seen to
be done. Telling amnesty they are nobodies in the eyes of the courts is not
really supporting that.

~~~
PJDK
According to the quote in the tweet itself the proceedings are accessible to
them and all other members of the media over a live link.

Amnesty really needs to explain why this is not adequate, and if it genuinely
is not adequate why the deserve this special access over and above any other
party with a strong interest in reporting this case.

~~~
toyg
Over the course of these hearings, the "live link" has had a habit of breaking
up or otherwise become unavailable at short notice, as Craig Murray has
reported.

This might be entirely coincidental, but regardless, I can see why observers
would find it not adequate.

~~~
PJDK
I'm sure that's annoying, but given the nature of what is being discussed it's
hard to come up with a scenario where that has a serious impact on the
observation of justice. Not least because if the live feed goes down at the
same time as something bad happens that would give an enormous amount of
ammunition to Assange's defence team.

~~~
toyg
“Something bad” in this context is stuff like the judge reading pre-written
decisions rather than elaborating them on the spot. Without independent
observers, there is no “ammunition” to be had, because it’s simply one’s word
vs the authorities’.

As someone else mentioned, this is the sort of thing that, when it happens in
“bad” countries, we often call with certain choice words.

------
tomalpha
Is there a real difference between video-link access, and being physically
present in this case?

From all the reporting, including Craig Murray's (who's in the public gallery
and definitely not on the government side in all this), it seems like the
controversial aspects of the trial are based on what's being said in the
courtroom rather than physical actions in the courtroom.

Is there a suspicion of physical foul play that needs to be monitored and/or
guarded against here rather than legal, evidential, or procedural foul play?

~~~
grandinj
Apparently the video-link and audio-link access is atrocious.

Making rather a mockery of court's public access requirements

~~~
londons_explore
I will personally go and install a decent audio and video link for free for
the court if it so desires, and I can do it after proceedings tonight and have
it ready for tomorrow morning. I can do it for zero cost.

Yet, I would bet that if I informed the court of that offer, they would say
no.

------
kkarakk
i fully expect assange to get life in prison/executed. would be par for the
course with how authoritarian governments are getting.

Snowden should watch out

------
stevespang
"We've made 3 applications requesting recognition as expert fair trial
monitors and all denied" . . .

Because it's not a fair trial, it's a sham trial which is being overshadowed
by the US Gov't.

