LONDON -- A British judge has decide to quash uphold an arrest warrant for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has spent more than five years evading the law inside Ecuador's London embassy.

Assange's lawyers had argued that it's no longer in the public interest to arrest him for jumping bail in 2012 and seeking shelter in the embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden, where prosecutors were investigating allegations of sexual assault and rape made by two women. He denied the allegations.

Judge Emma Arbuthnot rule against all five of the challenges to the warrant brought by Assange's lawyers on Tuesday afternoon at London's Westminster Magistrates' Court.

Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigation last year, saying there was no prospect of bringing Assange to Sweden in the foreseeable future. But the British warrant for violating bail conditions still stands, and Assange faces arrest if he leaves the embassy.

Assange's lawyers asked for the warrant to be withdrawn since Sweden no longer wants him extradited, but the same judge rejected their request last week.

Assange's attorney went on to argue that arresting him is no longer proportionate or in the public interest. Lawyer Mark Summers said that the 5 years Assange has spent inside the embassy were "adequate, if not severe" punishment for his actions, and cited a report by a U.N. committee which said the 46-year-old was being arbitrarily detained.

He also claimed the Australian was justified in seeking refuge in the embassy because he has a legitimate fear that U.S. authorities are seeking to arrest him for WikiLeaks' publication of secret documents.

Summers also argued that Assange's actions had not stalled Sweden's legal case, because Assange had offered to be interviewed by Swedish prosecutors at the embassy. He said emails recently released after a freedom of information request showed that a British state prosecutor had advised Sweden "that it would not be prudent for Sweden to try to interview Mr. Assange in the U.K."

Some lawyers who have followed the case said the arguments were unlikely to sway the judge.

"The impasse is just going to continue in this case," said Edward Grange, a partner at law firm Corker Binning.

He said the fact remained that Assange had chosen to enter the embassy to avoid arrest,

"It would be a dangerous precedent to set if the warrant could just be withdrawn on public interest grounds, because that would be seen as a reward for individuals who decide to avoid administrative justice," he said.

Even if the judge had lifted the British arrest warrant, Assange's legal problems may not have been over. He suspects there is a secret U.S. grand jury indictment against him for WikiLeaks' publication of classified documents, and that American authorities will seek his extradition

Another Assange lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, said the WikiLeaks chief was willing to face legal proceedings in Britain -- if he receives a guarantee that he will not be sent to the U.S. to face prosecution.

"Mr. Assange remains ready to face British justice and to resolve any outstanding matters related to his seeking protection in the Ecuadorean embassy - but not at the risk of being forced to face American injustice for exercising the freedom to publish," she said.

2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Originally posted here:
Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, loses court appeal to ...

A UK judge has dashed Julian Assange's hopes of throwing out an arrest warrant against him, scolding the Wikileaks editor for considering himself "above the law" and "wanting justice only if it goes in his favour".

In the Westminster Magistrates Court, Judge Emma Arbuthnot also heavily criticised a 2015 ruling by a United Nations panel that said Assange was under arbitrary detention in Ecuador's London embassy where he sought asylum in 2012 and has stayed ever since.

Play Video Don't Play

Play Video Don't Play

Previous slide Next slide

The founder of Wikileaks lost one legal bid to have a UK arrest warrant against him quashed but launched another, to have the British authorities halt any action against him on public interest grounds.

Play Video Don't Play

For the first time ever, scientists in Antarctica have attached a camera to a minke, one of the least understood of all whale species.

Play Video Don't Play

A former New York City high school teacher and his brother are accused of paying students to dismantle fireworks for gunpowder so he could make a bomb.

Play Video Don't Play

The Parkland Florida school shooting has reignited the debate over semi-automatic weapons and gun control laws in the United States.

Play Video Don't Play

Nikolas Cruz fled the Florida high school by hiding amongst a crowd of frightened students, he then visited two fast food restaurants before he was arrested two hours after the massacre.

Play Video Don't Play

NikolasCruzmade a brief appearance in court a day after he is alleged to have opened fire with an AR-15-style assault rifle in the second-deadliest shooting at a public school in US history.

Play Video Don't Play

Just before a train is about to pull up at Milan metro station in Italy, an 18-year-old rescues a two-year-old who falls onto the tracks.

Play Video Don't Play

Bail has been set at $5 million for an 18-year-old student suspected of planning a shooting at his high school. His grandmother has been credited with foiling his alleged plot.

The founder of Wikileaks lost one legal bid to have a UK arrest warrant against him quashed but launched another, to have the British authorities halt any action against him on public interest grounds.

She said Assange had been treated according to the law but has failed to attend court and has thwarted the course of justice by refusing to fully cooperate with a Swedish investigation into rape allegations.

Arbuthnot added Assange was in relatively good health despite a tooth infection, a frozen shoulder and depression.

Defendants on bail up and down the country, and requested persons facing extradition, come to court to face the consequences of their own choices. He should have the courage to do so too, she said.

Arbuthnot was weighing the public interest in pursuing Assange for refusing to surrender to police while on bail.

It is a criminal offence for someone on bail to refuse to surrender to police without reasonable cause - and Assange refused to leave the embassy despite a court order for his arrest after an extradition order to Sweden was upheld on appeal in 2012.

Get the latest news and updates emailed straight to your inbox.

But Assanges lawyer Mark Summers QC had argued that the arrest warrant should be dropped because it was not in the interests of justice and proportionality to bring an action against Assange.

He said Assange had already undergone enough punishment as a result of staying in the small embassy for more than five years.

Arbuthnot accepted that Assange has a serious tooth problem and is in need of dental treatment and needs an MRI scan on a shoulder which has been described as frozen, and that he has depression and suffers respiratory infections.

However Mr Assanges health problems could be much worse, she said.

In December 2015, the United Nations Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) ruled that Assange was subject to arbitrary detention, in breach of his human rights.

They held that he had been denied due process and a fair trial while he was in Wandsworth Prison, then during 550 days under house arrest, while he was appealing against his extradition to Sweden. They said the deprivation of his liberty continued while he was in the embassy.

However Arbuthnot said the WGAD had based its conclusions on some misunderstandings and the restrictions on Assanges freedom had been according to law and proportionate.

She said there was a distinction between Wandsworth prison and living in the embassy - he could leave whenever he wishes, he is free to receive it would seem an unlimited number of unsupervised visits, he can choose the food he eatsand the time he sleeps and exercises, he can sit on the balcony to take the air, and he is free to use a computer and mobile phone.

I suspect if one were to ask one of the men incarcerated in Wandsworth Prison whether conditions in the Ecuadorian Embassy were akin to a remand in custody, the prisoner would dispute the Working Groups assertion, Arbuthnot said.

His house arrest had been proposed by his own legal team, including leading human rights specialist Geoffrey Robertson QC.

The court - rightly as it turned out - had a fear Mr Assange would not surrender himself to the court and to ensure his attendance the conditions suggested by his lawyers were put in place.

Assanges lawyers had argued he had good reason to fear rendition - rather than extradition - to the US where some officials were calling for the death penalty.

I do not find that Mr Assanges fears were reasonable, Arbuthnot said. I do not accept that Sweden would have rendered Mr Assange to the United States. If that had happened there would have been a diplomatic crisis.

If, instead, the US had requested Assanges extradition, he could challenge it by arguing that he would not receive a fair trial or proper conditions of detention.

Assanges team also relied on an exchange of emails uncovered by an investigative journalist, in which a lawyer with the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK argued that Sweden should keep trying to arrest Assange.

Arbuthnot said she could not determine whether the lawyer had acted inappropriately, and it was too speculative to argue it had made a difference to the case.

Read the rest here:
Fugitive Julian Assange 'considers himself above the law': judge

The arrest warrant for Assange still stands.

Julian Assange lost his bid to halt legal action against him in the UK on Tuesday, after a British high court judge knocked down almost every argument put forward by his defense team.

A warrant for the arrest of the WikiLeaks founder still stands, said Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot, meaning Assange is unlikely to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has lived for the past six years, anytime soon.

The UK arrest warrant is based on Assange skipping bail in 2012 in order to avoid extradition to Sweden over allegations of rape and sexual assault. To dodge extradition, Assange entered the embassy disguised as a motorcycle courier after Ecuador offered him immunity. Swedish prosecutors have since dropped charges against him, but he could still be arrested if he leaved the embassy for breaching the conditions of his bail in the UK.

Now Playing: Watch this: Step inside Julian Assange's office

3:25

Assange's lawyers argued that it's no longer in the the public interest for police to arrest him. He is suffering from ill health and depression and the time he's spent locked inside the Ecuadorian Embassy is punishment enough for his crimes, they said.

Arbuthnot wasn't convinced by the arguments, saying the circumstances of his self-imposed stay at the embassy were not comparable to imprisonment. Arrest was a "proportionate response," said Arbuthnot, according to The Guardian. She added that Assange should have the courage to come to court to face the consequences of his choices.

Assange has not yet commented on the ruling and did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Even if the judge had ruled in his favor on Tuesday, Assange may have decided to remain inside the embassy as he fears the US may seek to have him extradited for activity related to WikiLeaks. The US government has repeatedly neither confirmed not denied the existence of an extradition warrant.

Rebooting the Reef: CNET dives deep into how tech can help save Australia's Great Barrier Reef.

It's Complicated: This is dating in the age of apps. Having fun yet?

Follow this link:
Julian Assange's arrest warrant stilll stands, says UK judge ...

Julian Assange addressing supporters outside Ecuador's London embassy in May 2017. AP

A British judge has called out Julian Assange for cowardice after he decided not to come to a court hearing in which he asked police to give up trying to arrest him.

Emma Arbuthnot, who heard Assange's case at Westminster Magistrates Court in central London, said in a ruling that he "should have the courage" to appear in court like anybody else accused of wrongdoing.

Assange has been hiding out in Ecuador's London embassy for the past five and a half years in an effort to avoid an arrest linked to claims of sexual misconduct in Sweden.

He would likely be arrested if he were to leave and try to go to court, which is the course of action Arbuthnot appears to be recommending.

His lawyers were in court to ask Arbuthnot to cancel the arrest warrant against Assange, on the grounds that it was no longer in the public interest to uphold it. The application was declined.

In a document explaining her decision, Arbuthnot attacked Assange's character. She accused him of considering himself "above the normal rules of law" and challenged him to personally appear in court.

Here's the relevant passage:

"The impression I have, and this may well be dispelled if and when Mr Assange finally appears in court, is that he is a man who wants to impose his terms on the course of justice, whether the course of justice is in this jurisdiction or in Sweden.

"He appears to consider himself above the normal rules of law and wants justice only if it goes in his favour. As long as the court process is going his way, he is willing to be bailed conditionally but as soon as the Supreme Court rules against him, he no longer wants to participate on the court's terms but on his terms.

"I have had to consider whether it is proportionate not to withdraw the warrant for his arrest. On the one hand he is a man who has failed to attend court and has thwarted the course of justice but on the other he has been unable to leave a small flat for a number of years and is suffering physically and mentally as a result.

"Having weighed up the factors for and against and considered [Assange lawyer] Mr Summers' arguments I find arrest is a proportionate response even though Mr Assange has restricted his own freedom for a number of years.

"Defendants on bail up and down the country, and requested persons facing extradition, come to court to face the consequences of their own choices. He should have the courage to do so too."

Assange argues that he is being wrongly detained, and fears that handing himself over to British police would ultimately end in his extradition to the United States, where he could face harsh punishment for publishing state secrets.

Arbuthnot's ruling considered whether that was a credible fear, and concluded that "no evidence" that he would have been extradited without numerous other chances to defend himself.

Assange tweeted a number of times during the hearing. He can choose to appeal Tuesday's ruling, according to Sky News.

Here is the original post:
Julian Assange accused of cowardice by British judge - BI

Julian Assange should have the "courage" to face court after losing his latest bid to have his UK arrest warrant dropped, a judge has said.

Assange's legal team had claimed it was no longer in the public interest to pursue him for failing to answer bail as he fought extradition to Sweden in 2012.

But in a ruling at Westminster Magistrates' Court, Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot said Assange believed he was "above the normal rules of law" and arresting him was a "proportionate response".

"Defendants on bail up and down the country, and requested persons facing extradition, come to court to face the consequences of their own choices," the judge said.

"He should have the courage to do the same."

She added: "He appears to consider himself above the normal rules of law and wants justice only if it goes in his favour."

After the ruling, Assange said he "surprised" at the decision and claimed the judgment contained "factual errors".

It was Assange's second failed attempt to have the arrest warrant dropped in a week.

Last week the same judge rejected his lawyers' claim that the warrant issued in 2012 was no longer valid because an investigation into rape claims had been dropped by Swedish authorities.

Assange has been living inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London for more than five years, fearing extradition to the United States for questioning over the activities of WikiLeaks if he leaves.

He has accused the UK government of a "cover up" to keep him detained and claimed his case had exposed "improper conduct" by the Crown Prosecution Service.

His barrister Mark Summers QC has alleged that emails showed a CPS lawyer apparently persuading the Swedish prosecutor not to drop the case.

He previously told the court that Assange had health problems, including depression, and that his years inside the embassy were more than adequate punishment for his bail offence.

The 46-year-old sought asylum in the embassy because he feared Swedish police would eventually send him to the US over WikiLeaks' publication of thousands of secret military documents in 2010.

The site released confidential information on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, provoking fury among US intelligence and defence chiefs.

Assange's lawyers believe there is a secret US indictment that will end up with him in an American court.

The UK government has not confirmed whether an extradition request exists.

Read the original:
Judge tells Julian Assange to have 'courage' to face court ...

WikiLeaks founder continues to face arrest if he leaves Ecuadorian embassy as judge rejects request to quash warrant

Julian Assange will continue to face detention if he leaves the Ecuadorian embassy in London after a British judge upheld a warrant for his arrest.

Handing down her judgment at Westminster magistrates court, the senior district judge Emma Arbuthnot said she was not persuaded by the argument from Assanges legal team that it was not in the public interest to pursue him for skipping bail.

She said: I find arrest is a proportionate response even though Mr Assange has restricted his own freedom for a number of years.

Defendants on bail up and down the country, and requested persons facing extradition, come to court to face the consequences of their own choices. He should have the courage to do the same. It is certainly not against the public interest to proceed.

Assange, 46, skipped bail to enter the embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over allegations of sexual assault and rape, which he denies.

Though Swedish prosecutors dropped the investigation against him, he faces arrest if he leaves the building in Knightsbridge, west London, for breaching his former bail conditions in the UK.

Lawyers for the WikiLeaks founder had asked for the warrant to be withdrawn since Sweden no longer wants him extradited, but the judge rejected their request last week. Representing Assange, Mark Summers QC went on to argue that arresting him was no longer proportionate or in the public interest.

Summers said that the years Assange has spent inside the embassy were adequate, if not severe punishment for his actions, and cited a report by a UN committee that said the Australian national was being arbitrarily detained.

But the judge said on Tuesday: Firstly, he can leave the embassy whenever he wishes; secondly, he is free to receive, it would seem, an unlimited number of visitors and those visits are not supervised; thirdly, he can choose the food he eats, the time he sleeps and exercises.

He can sit on the balcony (I accept probably observed by the police and his supporters) to take the air. He is not locked in at night.

I suspect if one were to ask one of the men incarcerated in Wandsworth prison whether conditions in the Ecuadorian embassy were akin to a remand in custody, the prisoner would dispute the working groups assertions.

Summers also argued Assange was justified in seeking refuge in the embassy because he had a legitimate fear that US authorities were seeking to arrest him for WikiLeaks publication of secret documents.

He said Assange had made attempts to cooperate with the investigation in Sweden but had been refused, and that emails uncovered by a freedom of information (FoI) request showed the Swedish prosecutor had been advised by a case lawyer at the Crown Prosecution Service that Assange should be interviewed in Sweden.

It [the correspondence] records that the CPS had already advised that it would not be prudent for Sweden to try to interview Mr Assange in the UK, he said.

In October 2013, Summers added, Sweden advised the CPS lawyer that it was time to withdraw the European arrest warrant on the grounds of proportionality, but it was four years before it eventually was.

Obviously these emails are of interest to the court, Arbuthnot said last week. But on Tuesday she said: I accept that Mr Assange had expressed fears of being returned to the United States from a very early stage in the Swedish extradition proceedings but, absent any evidence from Mr Assange on oath, I do not find that Mr Assanges fears were reasonable.

I do not accept that Sweden would have rendered Mr Assange to the United States.

If that happened there would have been a diplomatic crisis between the United Kingdom, Sweden and the United States which would have affected international relationships and extradition proceedings between the states.

Assange also suspects there is a secret US grand jury indictment against him and American authorities will seek his extradition.

Assanges lawyer Jennifer Robinson said before Tuesdays hearing that the US government had made clear its intention to bring a prosecution against WikiLeaks.

The UK FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] refuses to confirm or deny whether there is an extradition request for Mr Assange, she said. In our recent FoI challenge against the CPS [...] the CPS refused to disclose certain material because it would tip off Mr Assange about a possible US extradition request. It is time to acknowledge what the real issue is and has always been in this case: the risk of extradition to the US.

Gareth Peirce, one of Assanges legal team, said it would be possible to appeal against the decision.

Speaking outside the court, she said: Whether it is pursued is another question. The history of the case from start to finish is extraordinary. Each aspect of it becomes puzzling and troubling as it is scrutinised.

Read more:
Judge refuses to withdraw Julian Assange arrest warrant ...

Julian Assange speaks to the media from the balcony of the Embassy of Ecuador on May 19, 2017, in London. Jack Taylor/Getty Images hide caption

Julian Assange speaks to the media from the balcony of the Embassy of Ecuador on May 19, 2017, in London.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange lost an attempt Tuesday to have his U.K. arrest warrant dropped. He could still be arrested for leaving Ecuador's embassy in London, where he has lived for years.

British Judge Emma Arbuthnot said she was "not persuaded" the warrant should be withdrawn, according to The Associated Press.

Assange is a hero among hackers or undermines national security, depending on whom you ask. He drew international attention in 2010 for leaking thousands of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents, which infuriated American officials. He has been holed up in the embassy as he faced separate charges.

The Australian was being investigated for rape in Sweden, which he has denied. That investigation was dropped last year after the prosecutor said leads had been exhausted. But the London Metropolitan Police said they would continue to enforce an outstanding arrest warrant, which was issued after he failed to appear in court in 2012. Assange had stayed at the embassy, fearing that extradition to Sweden could lead to an extradition by the U.S.

Last month, Ecuador granted citizenship to Assange after officials decided his living situation was unsustainable.

In 2016, a U.N. panel said that Sweden and the U.K. were arbitrarily detaining Assange, NPR's Leila Fadel reported.

There are no formal charges against Assange in the U.S., though news reports last year suggested the Justice Department was looking into it.

See the original post here:
Judge Upholds U.K. Warrant Against Julian Assange : The Two ...

London:Julian Assange has suffered enough and shouldnt face prison for absconding from justice, his lawyers have told a court.

The Wikileaks editor is depressed, in constant pain from an infected tooth, and has been stuck in the Ecuador Embassy in Londons Kensington far longer than the maximum 12-month jail penalty for breaching bail, his barrister said.

On Tuesday Assange lost a legal bid at Westminster Magistrates Court to quash the arrest warrant that has awaited him since he entered the Ecuador embassy in June 2012.

However his lawyers immediately launched a new push to end the UK governments attempt to bring him to justice arguing that it is against the public interest to punish him for refusing to leave the embassy.

It is a criminal offence for someone on bail to refuse to surrender to police without reasonable cause and Assange refused to leave the embassy despite a court order for his arrest.

But Assanges barrister Mark Summers QC told Judge Emma Arbuthnot that it was not in the interests of justice and proportionality to bring an action against Assange.

Assange went into the embassy after he exhausted his line of appeal against a decision to extradite him to Sweden to face rape allegations.

Get the latest news and updates emailed straight to your inbox.

Sweden last year ended its investigation into the allegations, and the European arrest warrant against Assange was cancelled. However the British warrant for his arrest still stood and judge Arbuthnot said she was not persuaded it should be quashed simply because the underlying investigation had stopped.

Mr Summers said Assange was not thumbing his nose at justice and his five and a half years in the embassy were adequate if not severe punishment for the actions that he took.

Assange had genuine fears later proved correct that the US were keen to prosecute him over his work with Wikileaks, Summers said.

If arrested he would face rendition to the USA, treatment similar to that meted out against Wikileaks whistleblower Chelsea Manning and possible persecution, indefinite solitary confinement and the death penalty, Summers said in a written submission.

Former army private Chelsea Manning, who spent seven years in military prison for leaking classified documents to Wikileaks, recently announced she is running for a seat in the US Senate.

The FBI director had recently told Congress Assange would be arrested as soon as he stepped outside the embassy, and there was a sealed indictment against him, Summers told the court.

A United Nations tribunal had ruled that Assanges situation amounted to arbitrary, unreasonable, unnecessary and disproportionate detention.

Mr Summers also argued that it was not Assanges fault the Swedish investigation had dragged on so long. Sweden had decided to drop its arrest warrant in 2012, but emails uncovered by an Italian journalists Freedom of Information request had revealed that a British prosecution lawyer persuaded them to insist that Assange leave the embassy.

He also submitted a medical report about Assanges deteriorating health.

Judge Arbuthnot said the health issues were not that bad, but he had a real problem with a tooth (which) must be agonising.

Summers said Assange was in constant pain, regularly suffered respiratory infections and had significant depression.

The issue is whether he has been punished enough for what he did, Summers said.

Judge Arbuthnot said it was a very interesting case.

She will rule on the public interest application on February 13.

Outside court, Assanges lawyer Jennifer Robinson said whether or not the warrant is quashed Assange would not leave the embassy until he had an assurance he wouldnt be extradited to the US.

Mr Assange remains willing to answer to British justice in relation to any argument about breaching bail, but not at the expense of facing injustice in America, she said.

This case is and always has been about the risk of extradition to the United States and that risk remains real.

Ecuadors Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement on Tuesday saying the government of Ecuador would maintain international protection for Assange as long as the danger to his life persists and they were still trying to find a satisfactory solution to the situation.

Link:
Julian Assange 'has suffered enough', his lawyers tell ...

JULIAN Assange could walk free from the Ecuadorean Embassy where he has been holed up for more than five years, following a key judgment due on Tuesday, UK time.

The decision on whether a UK arrest warrant for Assange should be dropped could mean the Australian activist would be able to leave the Knightsbridge embassy as its the only remaining action hes got against him according to the UK Crown Prosecution Service.

It comes amid reports the WikiLeaks founder could have up to $25 million stashed in anonymous bitcoin accounts and has led to speculation over what he might do next.

Assanges UK-based lawyer Jennifer Robinson said regardless of Tuesdays decision, the central concern remains the risk of extradition to the US which the UK government has refused to confirm or deny is a possibility.

No one can credibly deny that risk. The US Attorney-General has said it is still a priority to prosecute Mr Assange, she told news.com.au ahead of the judgement.

The head of the CIA has described WikiLeaks as a hostile non-state intelligence agency. In these circumstances, we remain concerned about the risk of extradition to the US.

She said the team will continue to seek assurances he will not be sent overseas and remain very concerned about the health impact of having lived more than five years without access to outdoor space.

There is a grave threat to free speech. The US is seeking to criminalise the publication of information in the public interest by equating it with espionage. This must be resisted by all who believe in free speech, she said.

The comments follow a January 26 hearing in which Assanges lawyers argued the charges against him for skipping bail should be dropped because the original arrest warrant from Swedish authorities they related to has expired. The UK Crime Prosecution Service argued the 2012 warrant should stand and Assange should not be rewarded for simply outlasting authorities.

Outside the brick embassy with snowflakes swirling on a freezing February day, a huddle of Ecuadorean tourists who had come to see a slice of home were divided on the Australians fate.

I think it was good that he found a place to stay. We dont know why hes still here, said David, 33, from Quito. He said despite the ongoing legal drama in Britain, many at home are indifferent to the situation.

We dont care actually. People there are not so worried about international stuff. Its not an issue were talking about every day.

His friend Jose, 33, disagreed, saying most people dont agree with recent reports he had been granted an Ecuadorean passport and after posting a picture of himself in a football shirt on Twitter as Ecuador sought to resolve the situation.

He doesnt even speak Spanish. How can you get a passport from that country? I prefer that [he comes out]. It would be better for him and for our country, he said.

Others seemed incredulous the internet activist was still inside despite frequently passing the address.

To be honest I really thought he was gone, said John, 55, a black cab driver idling outside. To be stuck in a room for all that time is rough, but if hes got allegations of sexual assault he should have faced them.

Pascal, 21, who works at a European-style cafe serving croissants and luxury coffee within eyesight of Assanges balcony, said the five-year stay has been sentence enough.

It would have felt like [prison] to him, he said. Its a different kind of bars. Its prison its essentially the same.

Assange has not indicated what he would do if the judgement is in his favour, however if his tweets about bitcoin are to be believed, he could be rich enough to buy his own island to retire to.

In October, he claimed WikiLeaks had made a 50,000 per cent return after investing in bitcoin in 2010, with recent reports his fortune may have soared to $25 million or more. Hes also been able to maintain a strong profile in recent years and appear in keynote speeches via video link.

Last week he tweeted a link to an interview featuring musician David Thrussell who called Australia a nation of sheep where you could light their asses on fire and they would not notice with the comment the truth about Australia.

While a win would technically mean he could leave, its likely Assange would continue to seek legal assurances he would not be extradited upon release. A loss would mean a return to the status quo where he could face arrest for skipping bail and remain subject to covert surveillance from British authorities.

Continued here:
Julian Assange: WikiLeaks founder faces decision on ...

LONDON A British judge on Tuesday upheld a U.K. arrest warrant for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, leaving him still a wanted man in the country where he has spent more than five years inside the Ecuadorean Embassy.

Judge Emma Arbuthnot rejected a call from Assange's lawyers for the warrant to be revoked because he is no longer wanted for questioning in Sweden over alleged sex crimes. It was issued in 2012 for jumping bail.

"I am not persuaded the warrant should be withdrawn," Arbuthnot told lawyers, journalists and Assange supporters gathered at London's Westminster Magistrates' Court.

Assange, 46, has been holed up in Ecuador's embassy in London since he took refuge there in June 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden. Swedish prosecutors at the time were investigating allegations of sexual assault and rape made by two women in 2010.

Swedish prosecutors dropped the case last year, saying there was no prospect of bringing Assange to Sweden in the foreseeable future. But Assange was still subject to the British warrant for breaching his bail conditions in 2012.

Arbuthnot said in her ruling that "the administration of justice can be undermined by defendants who fail to attend" court while free on bail.

"Mr. Assange is not present in court today," she noted.

The judge said that if Assange came to court, he would be able to argue his case and "put an argument for reasonable cause" for breaching his bail conditions.

After the ruling, Assange's lawyer, Mark Summers, tried to persuade the judge to hold a hearing on the bail-jumping case in Assange's absence. She didn't immediately agree.

Had the judge ruled in Assange's favor, he would have been free to leave the embassy without being arrested on the British warrant.

However, Assange suspects there is a secret U.S. indictment against him for WikiLeaks' publication of leaked classified American documents, and that the U.S. authorities will seek his extradition.

Earlier this month, Ecuador said it had granted the Australian-born hacker citizenship, as the South American country tried to unblock the stalemate that has kept Assange as its houseguest for five-and-a-half years.

Ecuador also asked Britain to grant him diplomatic status. Britain refused, saying "the way to resolve this issue is for Julian Assange to leave the embassy to face justice."

British prosecutors had opposed the removal of the warrant, saying Assange shouldn't be immune from the law simply because he has managed to evade justice for a long time.

Extradition lawyer Rebecca Niblock of Kingsley Napley said before the ruling that Assange's legal argument was a longshot.

"Failing to surrender to bail is like insulting the court's authority" and unlikely to go down well with the court, she said.

Go here to read the rest:
British judge upholds arrest warrant for Julian Assange | Fox ...