Dear Ms Patel, UK Supreme Court, UK Parliament & British Public,

It is absurd that in a democracy established on the premise of a free press & human rights, a journalist, for the alleged ‘crime’ of faithfully reporting war crimes of another nation as an important matter of national & international public interest, can be detained indefinitely in a UK maximum security jail, without charge or conviction and then, a British Court can decide to extradite him to that same nation, which, has a track record of cruel & degrading treatment against political prisoners and where even, high profile regular-prisoners are negligently left to ‘commit suicide’ e.g. Epstein:

What happened to Britain’s ‘Golden Rule’?
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/judges-and-the-law/content-section-6.3#

UK Parliament 2005 States:

‘That this House believes that if the Government persists in seeking legislation that gives to a Minister of the Crown the right to impose detention or control orders on UK residents without the decision being taken in a court on the basis of a trial of evidence then the UK will stand accused of creating political prisoners seriously damaging the reputation of this country’s legal system as a beacon to the world.’ https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/27201/political-prisoners-in-the-uk

Creating political prisoners is legally & politically understood as; ‘seriously damaging the reputation of this country’s legal system’ and in such circumstances as here highlighted via Mr Assange’s case, only the Supreme Court has right-of-office/power to make the final decision on Assange.

According to its own statement of purpose:

‘The Supreme Court/SC: is the final court of appeal for all United Kingdom civil cases, and criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland

a) hears appeals on arguable points of law of general public importance

b) concentrates on cases of the greatest public and constitutional importance

c) maintains and develops the role of the highest court in the United Kingdom as a leader in the common law world’
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/role-of-the-supreme-court.html

The current decision via UK lower Courts, has effectively, set a Precedent for Britain to incarcerate & extradite journalists practising their Human Rights and right of a free press to honestly report factual information as news important to Public Interest i.e. Such journalists can now be detained as political-prisoners and on behalf of foreign interests and therefore by proxy, on behalf of UK political interests too via this new Precedent which, fundamentally undermines the principles & foundation of Common Law, Democracy & Human Rights?

Therefore, due to the profound and far-reaching political & legal implications as related to the Assange-case Precedent, it is of vital necessity for the Supreme Court to Hear Assange’s Appeal that:

The lower court, in making a decision on extradition of a UK-created political prisoner (held minus any trial or charge), to a nation that abuses, tortures & kills political prisoners, has negligently (albeit perhaps, unwittingly), operated beyond its remit and opened a ‘backdoor’ to political & legal DESPOTISM and thus, that decision poses a very serious threat against the foundation of British Common Law.

It is the fundamental duty & purpose of the SC to address this as a matter of national security i.e. Priti Patel is invited to step beyond the remit of her powers of office as Home Office Minister and take on the powers of the SC.

As HO Minister, Ms Patel has no professional right to make any decision about Mr Assange based on lawfully suspected as ‘negligent’ decisions made by lower Courts, exactly because the case now presented, is ‘of the greatest public and constitutional importance‘ and as such, NEEDS to be heard by the Supreme Court.

Since it is an SC prime remit to; ‘maintain and develop the role of the highest court in the United Kingdom as a leader in the common law world’: Refusal to hear Mr Assange’s Appeal on grounds as now cited herein, would mean the SC is negligently shirking its prime premise of function and instead, permitting Priti Patel to grant herself powers of a Supreme Court Judge and thereby, ‘seriously damage the reputation of this country’s legal system as a beacon to the world.’

Should Ms Patel continue to be granted power of making the final decision on this case, then effectively, Britain’s Supreme Court is VOID i.e. Britain has permanently forfeited the integrity and international reputation of the UK legal system and this, in turn, has profoundly serious implications in relation to all UK citizens Human Rights: A Government Minister has ultimate authority over granting or refusing those rights and even, approving new legal Precedents that fundamentally undermine existing constitutional law, and NOT Britain’s Supreme Court which instead, has acted only to deny Mr Assange the right of Appeal?

One may easily suspect that Mr Assange’s case has been politically appropriated for the covert purpose of undermining the foundation and powers of the Supreme Court precisely, to satisfy an insidious underlying political objective to attack & deny Common Law & Human Rights to UK residents.

Therefore, the issue of Mr Assange’s future as based on the new Precedent set by current lower-court decisions which ultimately, hand the final say to the Home Office Minister, is of immense constitutional importance and, it would be an act of gross negligence for our legal system to let this pass publicly unchallenged and without first, a Hearing of Appeal in the Supreme Court.

‘If extradited to the United States, Julian Assange, father of his 2 young British children, would face a sentence of 175 years in prison merely for receiving and publishing truthful information that revealed US war crimes.

UK Judge Vanessa Baraitser previously ruled “it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America”.

Amnesty International states that “Were Julian Assange to be extradited or subjected to any other transfer to the USA, Britain would be in breach of its obligations under international law.”

Human Rights Watch published an article saying, “The only thing standing between an Assange prosecution and a major threat to global media freedom is Britain. It is urgent that it defend the principles at risk.”

The NUJ has stated that the “US charges against Assange pose a huge threat, one that could criminalise the critical work of investigative journalists & their ability to protect their sources”.

Julian will not survive extradition to the United States.

The UK is required under its international obligations to stop the extradition. Article 4 of the UK-US extradition treaty must be enforced, which prohibits extradition for political offences.

Do not send Julian to the country that conspired to murder him in London.‘

It can never be judged a crime to report a crime and especially not a journalist acting in public interest.

You can, and you must save Julian Assange’s life and also, the integrity & reputation of Britain’s legal system and its ability to uphold basic Human Rights.

Yours Sincerely,

Miss Deborah Mahmoudieh

Please spare some time to assist: Click on the link below and have your say in defence of ours & Mr Assange’s Human Rights:

https://dontextraditeassange.com/boris-johnson-priti-patel-dont-extradite-assange/… #PritiPlease