Legal extended response PDF

Preview

Summary

julian assange and jock palferman essay ...

Description

Legal and non-legal responses on Julian Assange and Jock Palfreeman Julian Assange and Jock Palfreeman are both individuals who have encountered issues with the states. They are both Australian citizens who have experienced disadvantage in another jurisdiction. Julian Assange has experienced criminal issues with the state involving allegations of Espionage, sexual assault and the criminal use of WikiLeaks, while Jock Palfreeman has been convicted controversially charged of murder as hooliganism in Bulgaria. Additionally, The legal responses have been partially effective in addressing issues surrounding both cases of Julian Assange and Jock Palfreeman, however non legal Reponses have been able to better address these issues, to a greater extent. The courts and governments are both legal responses in which have led to a lengthy and costly response to the allegations against both individuals. Non-legal responses such as Media, and NGO’s have put pressure on the US, and Bulgarian government to better uphold both Australian citizens’ rights and balance the rights of the individual and the state. Both cases raise concerns surrounding the responsiveness of the government and international community, accessibility to justice and whether measures in dealing with this issue have been resource efficient. International law is the body of law that governs the relationship between nations in which come into force via a variety of sources. Under the concept of state sovereignty, states grant and limit power: it gives states complete control over their own territory while restricting the influence that states have on one another. Legal responses such as governments are partially effective in addressing both Julian Assange and Jock Pal freeman. Both victims that have been accused of committing a crime, have experienced unfair treatment from governments, as they have gone against them. Governments meet society’s needs by providing higher security and protection for community’s dealing with criminals such as the two individuals, however lack in protecting individual rights, and responsiveness of both citizens. For example, regarding Julian Assange, the US government is claiming that he has committed espionage, however, Assange denies these allegations and argues for his human rights, such as a right to freedom, journalism and freedom of information. Although as distinguished in cases of Kylie- Moore-Gilbert from Iran and Yang Hengjun from China, which are two other jurisdictions treating Espionage as a crime and have as well convicted these two individuals resulting the same issue. This reflects on Assange’s case due to the fact that treatment needs to be fairly administered throughout all nations, including the US as it can lead to controversy of the other two individuals. The New Yorker argues that the government states that Assange violated the Espionage Act by soliciting, obtaining, and then publishing classified information, as reported “That’s exactly what good national security and investigative journalists do every day”. Through the espionage act the government has argued that Assange is not a journalist causing his basic rights to be under attack from the US government. By meeting society’s needs the Bulgarian government lacked in giving Jock Pal freeman an unfair trial, as it was presented through the Bulgarians inquisitorial system as plea bargaining is not an option in other jurisdictions such as Australia’s adversarial systems, which led to corruption. Through the Human Rights Act individuals such as Palfreeman is applicable to defend his rights in courts and compels public organisations, including the Government to treat him equally, with fairness, dignity and respect. Furthermore, the legal response of governments partially effective in addressing the issue of Julian Assange and Jock Pal freeman as they meet society’s needs with the lack of legislations, providing safety for the rest of the society, although they lack in protecting individuals’ rights, causing unfair accusations and treatments from both cases. Another legal response such as the court proceedings which are moderately effective in addressing both cases by meeting society’s needs, as harsh sentencing was applied to both Australian citizens, however lack in enforcing rights that both Julian Assange and Jock Palfreeman are entitled to, regarding accessing justice. Assange was the subject of extradition proceedings in relation to sexual assault, and offences relating to Wikileaks. The BBC stated that the district judge reported that Julian Assange as a person facing extradition to the US would have to remain in prison. The Extradition Act 1988 relates to one jurisdiction delivering a person accused or convicted of committing a crime in another jurisdiction, over to their law enforcement. ‘I am grateful to the Ecuadorean ambassador and the government of Ecuador for considering my application.'' However, Assange failed to persuade the British Supreme Court to reopen his appeal against extradition to Sweden to be questioned about sexual assault allegations. Jock Palfreeman has also experienced issues within the courts during his criminal trial process, involving the unfair treatment during his trial and getting denied for clemency as well as parole. This was ineffective because the judge wasn’t impartial, whereas in Australia judges just hear both sides. Sydney criminal lawyers reported that Palfreeman quoted “The parole hearing wasn’t really a hearing at all, because even the judge cut the hearing short as he said he had another case to go to. Under the clemency act the criminal justice system is the act by members of government of extending mercy to a convicted individual, which Palfreeman was denied.” Access to justice was violated from both cases through courts as legal responses failed to undertake all evidence presented. Palfreemans unfair trial led to corruption as his evidence went missing through CCTV Footage. Furthermore, courts responded in a moderate effect towards both individuals as they meet society’s needs, by providing harsher punishments and sentencing for both individuals, although fairness was violated from courts, demonstrating the lack of access to justice.

Non- legal responses such as NGO’s are partially effective in addressing the issue of the Julian Assange and Jock Palfreeman cases. They provide responsiveness to the needs of victims and provides additional support where legal responses fail, however they often lack resource efficiency as funding is limited. An example of an NGO in which deals with Julian Assange is the ACLU, which aims to protect migrants’ rights as well as providing services on defending victims’ rights in courts by empowering communities. ACLU reports “prosecuting a foreign publisher for violating U.S. secrecy laws would set an especially dangerous precedent for U.S. journalists, who routinely violate foreign secrecy laws to deliver information vital to the public’s interest." The NGO’s of ACLU are responsive as they provide support to victims who have experienced unfair treatment in courts, violating an individual’s rights. They responded to Assange’s case by influencing public policy with a powerful voice. However, NGO’s such as ACLU rely on donations, fundraisers and provide funding which limits the amount of support and intervention provided to victims. Similarly, on Jock Palfreemans case the BPRA organisation is a registered advocacy group in which they state on behalf on jock Palfreemans case “so far the organisation’s processes are really grassroots and practical.” Palfreeman reports that he does not expect mass support from the Bulgarian public anytime soon, and for that reason the BPRA directs little energy towards winning them over. Furthermore, non-legal responses such as NGO’s are moderately effective in addressing the issue of Julian Assange and JP. Although NGO’s lack resource efficiency, as they bridge the gap between the failure of existing laws and achieving justice through non-legal methods demonstrating its responsiveness. The media is another non legal response in which presence in the cases involving Julian Assange and Jock Palfreeman which has proven to be significantly effective as it has shown to be responsive to the needs of the victims and accessible to society. However, lack in meeting society’s and the victims needs due to inaccurate information been presented both of Assange and Palfreeman. As exemplified through the article, new matilda, as reported that “State Responses to The Torture of Julian Assange” Human Rights Coalition warns in a document under the human rights act that “Unless citizens want their governments to support human rights, government leaders rarely will do so. As well as the media supporting Julian Assange’s case, Jock Palfreeman received the same response. Green left weekly’s bold headline stated on Pal freeman “Support needed for prison reform activist Jock Palfreeman on hunger strike”. Media articles are useful in generating awareness and providing a voice for victims, experts, advocacy groups and NGO’s. Who may then place political pressure on the government to reform their laws and take on recommendations. although can lack to meet society’s needs through the inaccurate presented of information which can potentially have effect on victims such as Assange and Palfreeman. Furthermore, the media is responsive, accessible as it has led to law reform and an awareness on private issue such as the individuals of Julian Assange, Jock Palfreeman and the law.

Overall, - conclusion to be written on the day...