[News:] Journalists and advocacy groups slam lack of access to Assange court proceedings

(London, U.K.) A number of journalists and international advocacy groups have hit out at British courts after teleconferencing facilities provided for Julian Assange’s U.S. extradition proceedings were “completely inaudible” — leaving observers unable to follow.

Participants complained of shoddy sound quality and of poor organisation after Westminster Magistrates’ Court in west London circulated two sets of dial-in details for the historic press freedom case — one for lawyers and the other for journalists and international observers.

The rare move was made in light of the ongoing Coronavirus “lockdowns” that have prevented many from travelling to the hearings, but with lawyers’ deliberations relayed through one telephone’s speaker to another phone’s receiver, many have complained that the solution was inadequate given the high public interest in the U.S. extradition request.

Rebecca Vincent, the U.K. bureau chief for Reporters Without Borders, said on Twitter that the experience was “extremely frustrating” and called on the courts to find a better solution before the next administrative hearing takes place on June 29.

“It remains extremely frustrating that the court does not adequately accommodate NGO observers,” she said. “I have never experienced so much difficulty accessing a trial in any country as at Woolwich Crown Court in February, and the teleconference option we now have is far from sufficient.

“The press are also facing severe restrictions. Only six journalists have been allowed to attend in person the past two hearings, with others limited to the awful phone line.

“This case is of high public interest and a better solution must be found before the full hearing resumes.”

The demands were echoed by Stefania Maurizi, a prominent Italian investigative journalist, formerly of La República, who said the lack of access was seriously hampering the media’s ability to scrutinise the proceedings.

“There is no chance whatsoever to follow the Julian Assange hearing from a remote connection,” she said on Twitter. “It’s completely inaudible. How can we journalists work in these conditions?

“There is no serious chance for us, the press, to seriously monitor such a crucial case.”

The criticisms came as Assange himself was reportedly “too unwell” to take part in the court proceedings, according to his partner Stella Morris and his barrister Edward Fitzgerald QC.

Fitzgerald told the court that doctors for Assange advised the 48-year-old not to attend given his background of respiratory problems that place him at a higher risk of suffering serious symptoms if he contracted Covid-19.

The latest absence makes it the third hearing in a row that Assange has now missed. He is being held on remand in H.M.P. Belmarsh in southeast London as he awaits the continuation of the substantive part of his U.S. extradition hearings.

Those are now set to commence on September 7 — after the outbreak of the novel Coronavirus made the proposed May 18 date unworkable — but due to further disruptions caused by the pandemic, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser was yet unable to assign an available court. A backlog of cases is understood to be the cause for the scheduling delays.

The change of venue is also expected to cause further restrictions on journalists as the 130 press gallery seats at H.M.P. Belmarsh, where the hearings in February commenced, are unlikely to be matched at another court facility, regardless of which one is allocated.

Nonetheless, both prosecution and defence agreed to submit psychiatric reports by July 31, with the skeleton arguments for the next phase of hearings to be submitted by September 1 and August 25 respectively.

If extradited to the U.S., Assange faces the possibility of a prison sentence of 175 years. For the disclosure of public interest documents revealing war crimes, corruption and human rights abuses, he has been indicted on 18 charges by a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia — 17 under the Espionage Act with a further charge of conspiring to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The case continues.