Don’t think this works really, does it?

Quito: Julian Assange’s lawyer accused Britain on Thursday of breaking international law by denying the WikiLeaks founder safe passage out of the country if he leaves Ecuador’s embassy in London.

“Britain is… violating all the norms of international law, human rights and humanitarian law,” said Baltasar Garzon, a Spanish ex-judge who leads Assange’s defense team.

He’s wanted for breaching his bail terms. There is no right of free passage in such circumstances.

From memory Garzon was the magistrate who wanted Pinochet so he’s been inventive in legal theory for some time.

20 comments on “Don’t think this works really, does it?

  1. He’s not a diplomat as for as I’m aware but could the effectively put him in a diplomatic bag, or is that the stuff of films and books?

  2. There is plenty of precedent for this. Cardinal Mindszenty is one.

    He’s a criminal. They can issue him a “diplomatic passport”, but he doesn’t become a diplomat until his credentials are presented and accredited by the host nation. Trivial administrative stuff normally , states only make a fuss with new ambassadors but we can reject any attempt by him to change his status.

  3. Presumably, SE, he’d have to leave the embassy on his way to be presented and accredited, at which point plod nabs him.

    He didn’t think this through, should have gone to a muzzie embassy so he could escape in an Islamic freedom sack. Downside would likely have been a very sore arse.

  4. Bail for what? If it was to do with invented offences in Sweden he should be pardoned or otherwise let off, and be told he’s free to go. If that means that the CIA do a Seth Rich number on him that’s not our worry.

    I do object if my money is being wasted on policing the Ecuadorian embassy over some fraudulent nonsense from the Swedes.

  5. BiG,

    > He must become Julieanne Assange.

    Chelsea (Bradley) Manning already tried that trick. It didn’t work.

  6. Presumably, SE, he’d have to leave the embassy on his way to be presented and accredited, at which point plod nabs him.

    No, the actual accreditation is done by exchange of letters (probably email nowadays). So they would make him a diplomat, send the letter, and we’d send a letter back saying “bugger off”, or similar.

    I’m fairly sure this sort of thing happens with non-criminals – a person in post in an administrative or technical is upgraded to a diplomatic (or consular role.)

    I think the important point is Article 39.1 of the Vienna Convention:

    “Every person entitled to privileges and immunities shall enjoy them from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its territory, from the moment when his appointment is notified to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or such other ministry as may be agreed.”

    So he wasn’t entitled to any privileges before he went to the Embassy and, under Article 8.3, because he isn’t Ecuadorian, we can reject any attempt to make him diplomatic staff (as we can an Ecuadorian under Article 9, anyway) and thus immune to arrest under Article 29.

    You get to one of these nasties in diplomatic discourse – if they say he is an immune member of the mission, we can say, nope, not accepting that. And he can then be arrested as soon as he is off premises (embassy transport also cannot be searched. But you have to walk at some point to get on an aircraft.)

    Usually, this is done (for obvious reasons) before the person enters the country.

    I do object if my money is being wasted on policing the Ecuadorian embassy over some fraudulent nonsense from the Swedes.

    We have to police the Ecuadorian embassy anyway.

    And it is now nothing to do with the Swedish charges or lack of – he skipped bail in this country. An offence under Section 7 of the Bail Act 1976. For which he can be arrested, without warrant, by any constable.

  7. “And it is now nothing to do with the Swedish charges or lack of – he skipped bail in this country.”

    Non sequitur: what was he bailed over? If it was the Swedish fiction, then let him go.

  8. I wasn’t fiction, though, the charges have lapsed in Sweden, but they do not in the UK. He will be charged with bail-jumping for the rest of his natural.

    Samuel L Jackson in Jackie Brown had the right idea.

  9. “He will be charged with bail-jumping for the rest of his natural.” Right, so pardon him. The bail was all about the trumped up charges in Sweden. He was in fear of his life; legitimately, I’d think, given the consequence-free way that the FBI murdered that witness they had to the habits of the Boston bombers.

  10. In other words stop spending my bloody money on persecuting the fellow. If the Yanks want to persecute or murder him let them spend their own money.

  11. Perhaps the FBI should huire that Canadian sniper bloke in a sort of “Oops my high velocity rifle went off while I was cleaning it.” kind of accident.

  12. Right, so pardon him.

    Pardons are for people who have admitted or been convicted of the offence (particularly one which is no longer seen as appropriate for conviction) not, even if you are St Tony of Blair, for narcissistic ne’er-do-wells who are still “on the lam”.

    Even the letters of comfort issued to Irish terrorist scumbags were “the Police will no longer pursue …” rather than pardons.

  13. The bail was all about the trumped up charges in Sweden.

    No need for judicial process, dearime has it all worked out. For someone who was innocent, Assange has gone to a great deal of trouble (and spent a lot of his friends’ money) to avoid appearing before a Swedish court. And please don’t give us a load of tinfoil-hat rubbish about black CIA helicopters.

    Do you believe anyone should be free to ignore a court summons, or just minor slebs?

  14. What was trumped up was the ridiculous notion that he is more likely to be extradited from Sweden to the USA than from the UK to the USA. This served only to justify the little scrote’s evasion of Swedish justice. I’m more than happy for him to rot in the Ecuadorean embassy and would also chip in to cover your share, dearieme.

  15. If jumping bail isn’t contempt of court it should be. I don’t care whether or not he was guilty as alleged in Sweden, I do care that he’s taken the piss out of our judicial system.

    They only upside is a load of celebrity SJWs got their fingers burned.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.