Wikileaks founder Julian Assange appeared to struggle to say his own name as he faced court to fight extradition to the US.

Assange (48) is accused of leaking the country’s government secrets in one of the largest ever compromises of confidential information.

Clean shaven and with his white hair combed back, he appeared in the dock at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, he mumbled, paused and stuttered as he gave his name and date of birth at the start of a case management hearing.

His barrister Mark Summers QC said there is a “direct link” between the “reinvigoration” of the investigation, which was concluded during Barack Obama’s presidency, and the Donald Trump administration.

“Our case will be that this is a political attempt to signal to journalists the consequences of publishing information. It is legally unprecedented,” he said.

Mr Summers also claimed the US – where Assange faces 18 charges, including hacking a Pentagon computer – was involved in invading his client’s legal privilege.

“The American state has been actively engaged in intruding into privileged discussions between Mr Assange and his lawyers in the embassy, also unlawful copying of their telephones and computers [and] hooded men breaking into offices,” he said.

District Judge Vanessa Baraitser refused to grant defence lawyers more time to gather evidence.

A full extradition hearing will be held in February.

Assange complained he had not understood proceedings.

He said: “I can’t research anything, I can’t access any of my writing. It’s very difficult where I am.” He told the judge he is up against a “superpower” with “unlimited resources” and appeared to fight back tears as he said: “I can’t think properly.”

Assange was jailed for 50 weeks in May for breaching his bail conditions after going into hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for nearly seven years to avoid extradition to Sweden over sex offence allegations.

He was due to be released from high-security Belmarsh prison last month, but a judge remanded him in custody because there were “substantial grounds” for believing he would abscond.

Source: Read Full Article