Friday, 22 June 2012

What is Assange's plan?

So if Ecuador grant Assange asylum - what next?  
How does he get from the front door of the Embassy to an airport?  Those with asylum do not have freedom from criminal arrest in the UK.  He is liable for arrest under section 7(3) Bail Act 1976 - A person who has been released on bail in criminal proceedings and is under a duty to surrender into the custody of a court may be arrested without warrant by a constable—if the constable has reasonable grounds for ...... suspecting that that person has broken any of those conditions.  

He could become immune from arrest if he is appointed as a diplomatic agent by Ecuador as article 29 of the Vienna Convention (which is binding in English Law via Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964) states that The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention  and this applies from the moment "his appointment is notified to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or such other ministry as may be agreed" (article 39) - i.e. from the moment he is accredited to the Court of St James....

Ecuador is free to appoint who they want as diplomats and accreditation could not be refused by the UK - the sending State may freely appoint the members of the staff of the mission (article 7) but the UK could declare Assange persona non grata under article 9 - The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission  

If Ecuador 'recalled' Assange then he would be able to get to the Heathrow without being arrested and he would be on his way to he would only loose his immunity from arrest if Ecuador did not recall him:
 If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable period to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this article, the receiving State may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission  

So is that the plan?  It would cause a massive diplomatic row between Sweden, UK and Ecuador - and Ecuador's presentation of Assange as a diplomatic agent would be viewed as an abuse of international law - but it does not sound like Ecuador's Govt is that bothered by those sorts of allegations......I bet there are quite a few worried civil servants in the FCO today.....


  1. Interesting.

    Article 8:

    1.Members of the diplomatic staff of the mission should in principle be of the nationality of the sending State.
    2.Members of the diplomatic staff of the mission may not be appointed from among persons
    having the nationality of the receiving State, except with the consent of that State which may be withdrawn at any time.
    3.The receiving State may reserve the same right with regard to nationals of a third State who are not also nationals of the sending State.

    If the UK has reserved the Art 8(3) right then they may not be able to appoint Assange.

  2. Julian Assange -The Australian, 40

    If Julian Assange had committed ANY crime on British soil then the UK govt ~ via their proxy, the metro police had every right to arrest him.


    If he has 'allegedly' committed a crime in another country then any petition against him should be directed through the Australian govt.

    As Australia House in London is on Australian soil Assange should have been taken there and held, until Canberra dealt with the situation, ie. extradition request from Sweden, under Australian law. And legal conditions relating to Sweden/Australia. Or escorted home by federal police to be detained awaiting legal outcome.

    The Australian High Commissioner may be able to ask the UK govt to obtain their police support in escorting Assange to custody in Australia House if he refused to surrender there. Although Australian law enforcement officers should be present with the UK police.


    The UK govt has acted Illegally in arresting Assange, tagging and bailing him and through ALL court cases - including the UK High Court.


    The UK is without doubt, in this case, lawless and politically reckless ..

    It would appear the UK Supreme Court are mere puppets of a political system out-of-control.


    _ Including the acceptance of 'bail surety' which is tantamount to fraud.

    Also, the actions by the Australian Prime Minister, Attorney-General and Foreign Minister have aided and abetted these illegal activities.

    __Graham Lewis VARNEY | Australian born citizen | 25/6/2012

    1. Hey...Thanks for your nice analysis to this blog.

  3. Why would Ecuador risk its diplomatic and political ties with the UK and Sweden over this weirdo?

    Could we just stop thinking of Sweden as a brutal police state that doesn't have any due process or rule of law? It is SWEDEN.

  4. This plan sounds feasible, but it is never the less risky for Assange! Further, what is the guarantee that he will find a carrier for escape? He can be easily kidnapped by US at any stage of his flight from UK.

    My guess is that Assange will not use such legal remedies using international law, unless Ecuador assures him that it is ready to go to any lengths to bring him home.

    If that does not happen, during diplomatic exchanges between Eq, UK and Sweden, his lawyers will build up his case in Sweden to prevent extradition. Meanwhile, a case will be filed in EU court which will block extradition. He will also appeal to Swedish courts directly.