Legal saga ends: Julian Assange admits guilt, returns to Australia

Julian Assange exited the Federal Court Building in Saipan, North Marianas Islands as a free individual after admitting to a single count of violating the US Espionage Act. The court acknowledged his 62 months served in Belmarsh Prison as a suitable punishment, concluding that he has no further legal obligations or sentences to fulfill. Assange now finds himself on Australian territory, marking his first night in his homeland in almost 15 years. During a press conference in Canberra, his lawyer Jen Robinson, visibly moved, expressed that Assange's return home had been a life-saving event. Stella Assange, a human rights advocate, Julian's spouse, and the mother of their two children, struggled to articulate her feelings as he ran towards her from the aircraft and embraced her. She shared a poignant picture of their reunion on social media, accompanied by a single word: 'home.'

However, this situation raises numerous legal queries and unresolved disputes. Specifically, there are significant human rights issues that may only be addressed in future legal proceedings, if at all. Assange has been on the run since his platform WikiLeaks released classified US military footage alleging the killing of Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists by US troops. He sought refuge in Ecuador's embassy in London for seven years to avoid extradition to the US regarding the leaks. In 2019, police entered the embassy, arrested Assange, and held him in jail until recently. Since 2012, he has contested extradition attempts and subsequent charges under the US Espionage Act, which could lead to a 175-year prison sentence.

Very recently, he finally settled a plea deal with the US, pleading guilty to one charge of conspiracy to commit espionage in return for a “time already served” sentence.

Ms Assange told the media he was grateful to all who had supported him, but he was tired and asked the family be given privacy.

“My name is Julian Paul Assange.”

At that moment, the founder of WikiLeaks spoke publicly for the first time since the start of his legal battle. In a courtroom with wood paneling, located at the base of a green hill on the Saipan coast, Assange attended a three-hour hearing where he admitted to breaking US espionage laws. This admission was part of a deal that would enable him to return to his family in Australia. Upon his arrival at the court, under a clear blue sky, Assange did not entertain any questions from the numerous media personnel who had traveled long distances to reach this remote American territory with a population of 40,000 in the Northern Mariana Islands. The presiding judge, Ramona V Manglona, observed the unusually crowded courtroom and asked Assange to confirm his actions and reasons for pleading guilty. Assange, considering himself a journalist, acknowledged that he had encouraged a source to provide classified information, believing that such actions were protected under the first amendment. However, he now acknowledged that this was indeed a violation of the US Espionage Act. When asked if he was pleading guilty because he was truly guilty, Assange hesitated before finally stating, 'I am.'

As the unprecedented hearing continued, the judge noted that the timing of it was key to its outcome.

“If this case was brought before me some time near 2012, without the benefit of what I know now, that you served a period of imprisonment … in apparently one of the harshest facilities in the United Kingdom … I would not be so inclined to accept this plea agreement before me,” she said.

“But it’s the year 2024.”

Manglona stated her acceptance of the plea deal negotiated between Assange and the US government. She informed Assange that he would be released immediately due to time served in a British prison, without any supervision period. Expressing hope for peace, Manglona mentioned that Assange would leave the courtroom as a free man. Despite the predictability of the outcome upon Assange's courtroom entry, the moment's significance was not diminished. Emotional, Assange nodded at the judge in acknowledgment. Manglona noted that the case concludes in Saipan, ensuring Assange comprehended the agreement details. Assange, slightly hoarse, confirmed his understanding. As the judge concluded the formalities, she wished Assange an early happy birthday and encouraged him to start his new life positively. While some legal matters from the case remain unresolved, once Assange pleaded guilty, the US government's attorneys withdrew the extradition request from the UK, canceling the upcoming appeal. In May, the UK High Court granted Assange the right to appeal the UK Home Secretary's extradition order based on free speech grounds.

The first ground of appeal accepted by the court was that extradition would be incompatible with Assange’s right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The second ground, related to the first, is that he would be discriminated against on the basis of his nationality because he could, as a non-citizen of the US, be unable to rely on First Amendment freedom of speech rights.

But as this appeal is no longer proceeding, the issue of whether a threat to the accused’s freedom of expression can stop extradition will therefore not be argued or decided. The European Court of Human Rights and other human rights bodies have never addressed this point. It’s unlikely to arise again soon.

Regarding freedom of expression, the connection between the US Espionage Act and the First Amendment of the US Constitution remains uncertain. Assange's team asserts that publishing US intelligence served the public interest by exposing alleged war crimes, arguing against his punishment. The differing perspectives of Assange and the US government on whether freedom of expression should be exempt from Espionage Act violations were evident, with Assange acknowledging the lack of a legal precedent for such an exemption. The question arises whether Assange's guilty plea sets a precedent for prosecuting journalists for espionage, but legally speaking, it does not constitute a binding judicial interpretation. The judge did not rule on the legal correctness of either party, yet the US government can view this case as a successful prosecution under the Espionage Act. The issue of how much a non-US national can invoke the First Amendment also remains unresolved, potentially impacting Assange's extradition appeal based on concerns of discrimination. The hearing also raised the query of whether Assange's time in the Ecuadorian embassy qualifies as detention, as his lawyers argued for a broader interpretation of his period of confinement beyond his time in Belmarsh prison.

The UK and Sweden both refused to accept the conclusions of the working group, as they do not consider them to be binding. Additionally, the conclusions exceeded the established legal precedents on arbitrary detention, which typically focus on matters of legality and due process rather than duration. Only the dissenting member of the Working Group examined the impact of Assange's voluntary actions on the length of his stay in the embassy. With Assange remaining a polarizing figure, praised by some for advocating free speech and journalism while criticized by others as a criminal avoiding accountability, a 14-year legal saga concludes unexpectedly and abruptly beside the glistening Pacific Ocean, near a beach, in a location far from its origins, leaving a trail of unanswered queries and legal complexities for the future.