Assange’s lawyers have requested Emma Arbuthnot recuse herself in the case of Assange because she is a conflict of interest. Arbuthnot has refused. Nils Melzer, the UN special rapporteur on torture stated this.
The judge presiding in Assange extradition case “has a strong conflict of interest,” Melzer said from Vienna…“Her husband had been exposed by WikiLeaks.”
By not admitting to this, Arbuthnot is showing the judicial corruption involved in this case. This case is nothing but a show by the U.K. to appease his supporters. I believe they have no intention of seeking justice for Assange.
According to truthdig:
Assange stated in court Friday:
“The prosecution attorney told the BBC yesterday I was wanted in the U.S. for computer hacking,” he said. “This is unquestionably false. Even the U.S. admits there was no hack. No passwords were broken. There is no evidence that I, WikiLeaks or Chelsea Manning engaged in hacking. I have 175 years of my life at stake. This is a signal that the prosecution will misrepresent the charges to mislead the press.”
The judge, Emma Arbuthnot, cut him off, saying “this is not the time to go into this.”
Commenting in 2018 when Assange’s lawyers requested that the warrant for his arrest be dropped, Arbuthnot 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. Assange’s fears were reasonable,”
This circular logic is not the only disturbing aspect of Judge Arbuthnot’s overseeing of the Assange case. She is married to James Arbuthnot, who sits in the House of Lords, is a British Conservative Party politician, was the minister of state at the Ministry of Defense and for nine years was the chairman of the Defense Select Committee in the House of Commons, a committee that oversees the operation of the Ministry of Defense and the armed forces. Arbuthnot, who was reprimanded while a member of Parliament for diverting public funds to maintain his two homes, is a director at SC Strategy, established by John Scarlett, the former head of the British foreign intelligence service MI6. The politician also is on the advisory board of Thales UK, a huge arms manufacturer whose corrupt business practices, which included massive bribes to heads of state in exchange for arms contracts, were exposed when some of its internal documents were published by WikiLeaks.
Arbuthnot will not rule in favor of Assange regardless of testimony and evidence brought before her. In fact, I believe she may be seeking vengeance against Assange for exposing her husband. How can she legally even be allowed to preside over this case?
Supporters of Assange must raise their voice and insist she recuse herself.
To send a letter to Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot:
181 Marylebone Road
London
NW1 5BR
DX 120551, Marylebone 9
Office global email addresses:
Judicial Deployment – gl-cmo.ddjdeployment@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
Angel Fox Media 
As judges ultimately judge themselves (see who judges the judges in UK, google.com) it’s interesting to note the Lord Chancellor yet has a formal role.
Chris Greying and the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgledd (sic) are supported by a group of officials known as the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office (JCIO). I wonder if they might be helpful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
WikiLeaks exposed important arms manufacturerThales, UK, for corrupt business practices, including bribery for arms contracts. Judge Emma Arbuthnot’s husband, Lord James Arbuthnot is/was on the advisory board of Thales. Lady Arbuthnot is also the judge in Julian Assange’s extradition hearing (requested by U.S.), Julian Assange is co-founder of Wikileaks. According to British Judicial Code of Conduct, ‘it is essential that judges not only are, but are also seen to be impartial ‘. Further, ‘even the appearance of a possible conflict of interest may disqualify them’, according to the JCC.
Because of her husband’s connection to Thales, UK, & Assange’s connection to Wikileaks, I would argue that Lady Arbuthnot fails to meet the standard of ‘absolute impartiality’ set by the British Judicial Code of Conduct on the question of whether an ‘appearance of bias or possible conflict of interest may disqualify them’ – The Code further states that the question of even ‘an appearance of bias … ensures that judges will be mindful of such conflicts’. Lady Arbuthnot has not met this standard of codified judicial mindfulness, and ought to have recused herself before ever meeting Julian Assange, whose connection to Wikileaks is well known.
Addressing The Judicial Code’s stricture ‘that even the appearance of a possible conflict of interest may disqualify them’: it is not difficult to imagine that normal marital circumstances between Lord & Lady Arbuthnot would result in such a conflict of interest, and the appearance of such, as well, to The Judicial overseers, whoever they may be, and to the general public. More grounds exist, but I argue that these are sufficient for Judge Arbuthnot to either recuse herself or be excused from presiding over Julian Assange’s extradition hearing.
LikeLike