The decision over whether the UK courts will allow Julian Assange to appeal an agreement with the US to extradite him has been delayed.

For Julian Assange, that means his fight to overturn the court's decision continues.

• For a full write through of the ruling and events of today, click here
• Want to know more about Assange and the secrets revealed by WikiLeaks? Read this story
• And for a detailed look at the twists and turns of Assange's case, take a look at our timeline

This coverage brought to you by Nathan Williams, Emily McGarvey, Callum May, Ellie Price, Thomas Mackintosh and Emily Atkinson. Thanks for joining us.

Image source, EPA

We'll be ending our coverage of the latest judgement in the extradition case of Julian Assange soon. But before we go, here's a wrap-up of the key developments:

The judgement

• The UK High Court ruled that the US must give assurances that the WikiLeaks founder will not face the death penalty if he is extradited
• The US has been given until mid-April to provide this before it makes a final decision over whether Assange can bring an appeal against his extradition to the US

• The High Court is also seeking assurances over whether Assange will be able to rely on free speech rights

The reaction

• Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Assange's wife Stella Assange said she was "astounded" by the decision and called on the US to drop the "shameful" case
• A member of Assange's legal team, Jennifer Robinson, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, and Amnesty International similarly urged the US drop the case and the charges against him
• Legal expert Prof Carl Tobias told the BBC he thinks the US should be able to offer assurances Assange will not face the death penalty

Image source, PA Media

Today's ruling is the latest of many, with Julian Assange having spent years fighting to overturn the 2019 decision by the UK to grant an extradition request made by the US.

In December 2021, the High Court ruled that he should be extradited, dismissing claims that his poor mental health meant he might take his own life in a US jail.

In June 2022, the Supreme Court upheld that decision and then-Home Secretary Priti Patel confirmed the extradition order.

In February 2024, Assange returned to the High Court to ask permission to appeal against Patel's decision and to challenge the original 2021 court ruling. His supporters said this could be his last legal avenue.

And today, the court said it would delay its ruling until 20 May and asked the US authorities to provide a number of assurances about Assange's treatment.

Image source, Getty Images

Earlier, we heard from Jennifer Robinson, an Australian human rights lawyer who has acted as legal counsel to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks since 2010.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's World at One programme, she says Assange and his legal team have not received any offer from the US Department of Justice over any plea bargaining deal.

Robinson says it is "astonishing" the US has not already offered assurances that Assange won't be exposed to the death penalty, or that he will benefit from First Amendment protections and won't be prejudiced by his nationality as an Australian.

"The US shouldn't be granting assurances," Robinson adds. "They should be dropping the case.

"Julian should never have been in prison this long. He is in a very difficult position. His health has deteriorated significantly.

"That is why he and his wife talk about his life being at risk."

Image source, Reuters

The delay to the High Court's ruling on Julian Assange's extradition appeal leaves the WikiLeaks founder "in limbo", says Amnesty International’s legal adviser.

Simon Crowther says that instead of allowing this "protracted legal process to continue, the US should drop all charges against Assange.

"While the US has allegedly assured the UK that it will not violate Assange’s rights, we know from past cases that such ‘guarantees’ are deeply flawed - and the diplomatic assurances so far in the Assange case are riddled with loopholes."

​Crowther adds:

Ellie Price
Reporting from the High Court

I have been speaking to a UK-based legal expert who has explained two of the assurances judges have asked for are based on the fact Julian Assange is not a US citizen.

Whereas the British legal system is based on rights and protections for all people, the US bases its legal system on rights and protections for its citizens.

This is the consideration judges have made for Assange.

So the idea he would enjoy the same rights, like freedom of expression under the First Amendment for example, is not a given.

That is what judges here in the UK need to clarify.

Image source, Getty Images

Stella Assange is now speaking at a separate press conference about husband's ongoing extradition battle.

"US assurances are not worth the paper they are written on," she says, adding that the US is a "country that has plotted to assassinate and kidnap Julian - a publisher - in order to silence him".

She accuses the CIA of "hatching plans" to kill Assange, an allegation - not yet evidentially tested - that Assange's lawyers have previously made.

Asked by the BBC about her initial reaction to the judgement, she says she feels "the court is tying itself in knots", adding she finds the latest turn "bizarre".

Image source, PA Media

Jennifer Robinson, WikiLeaks legal counsel, says she cannot speculate on whether the US will offer assurances to the UK High Court but adds: "US diplomatic assurances are not worth the paper they're written on."

Robinson says instead of offering assurances, the US should be "dropping the case altogether".

"Even if we receive the assurances we are not confident we can rely on them."

Jennifer Robinson, WikiLeaks legal counsel, has been speaking at a media briefing following the High Court decision.

She says the court's decision raised "fundamental concerns about free speech".

"The judgment today demonstrates that if Julian was extradited to the United States there is a real risk and concern that he would not be afforded free speech protections," she adds.

"It is absurd that we are five years into this case and the US has not offered assurance to protect him from (the death penalty)."

Image source, EPA

Jeremy Corbyn says today's court decision is a "big step forward" for Julian Assange's case, but that it is "not the victory" his supporters want.

"Above all, the pressure has to be on the US administration to drop the charges against Julian Assange," he tells the crowd outside the High Court.

The former Labour leader adds that if Assange "goes down" for telling "some very uncomfortable truths about the [US] military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan", then "every serious journalist around the world is going to be feel a bit constrained - and that's dangerous".

Callum May
BBC News

One legal expert thinks the US should be able to offer assurances Julian Assange will not face the death penalty.

Prof Carl Tobias, of the law school at the University of Richmond, Virginia, said there was no suggestion the death penalty was sought by the original prosecution.

"The criminal laws for which the US indicted him do not expressly permit imposition of it," said Prof Tobias.

"He confronts a maximum sentence of five to ten years in prison for each one of the 18 counts included in the indictment."

Image source, EPA

For those of you just joining us, here are the key points from today's High Court judgement:

• The court has delayed its decision over whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can bring an appeal against his extradition to the US
• The High Court has given the US three weeks to provide assurances over the case
• In particular, they want to see assurances over the use of the death penalty, and over whether Assange will be able to rely on free speech rights
• If no assurances are offered, the court will grant that an appeal hearing can go ahead
• Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Assange's wife Stella said she was "astounded" by the decision and called on the US to "drop this shameful case"

You can read more on the background to Assange's appeal here.

Speaking outside the High Court in central London this morning, Julian Assange's wife Stella gave her reaction to the judgement.

Earlier we reported Stella expressed she was "astounded" by the decision.

You can watch we she had to say below.

Callum May
BBC News

The judges completely dismissed Julian Assange’s attempt to appeal against his extradition on the grounds that the US was trying to extradite him for a political offence.

The extradition treaty between the US and the UK prevents this. Article 4.1 of the treaty says that "Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense."

However, the court said there was a long standing principle that domestic law – in this case the Extradition Act 2003 – trumped international treaties.

The act prevents extradition on account of an offence involving a defendant’s political opinions. But the judges said the law says nothing about preventing extradition for a political offence.

"Although there may be a degree of overlap, the two are separate concepts,” the judges said.

They said the judge in a lower court who originally approved the extradition in July 2023 correctly concluded that Assange was not being prosecuted on account of his political opinions.

Image source, PA Media

The risks to Julian Assange and to press freedom "remain stark", despite the delay to the High Court's ruling, Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, says.

"Assange's prosecution by the US is for activities that are daily work for investigative journalists - finding sources with evidence of criminality and helping them to get their stories out into the world," she says.

"If Assange is prosecuted, free expression the world over will be damaged."

She adds: "The nuanced nature of this appeal judgment makes an alternative ending to this situation even more pressing.

"In recent months there has been increasing speculation about some kind of plea deal, to bring this saga to a swift and straightforward conclusion. I urge the US to return to these options.

"Media freedom is under threat all over the world, compassion and common sense from the US Department of Justice would do much to restore Washington's reputation as a bastion of free expression."

Another key section from the ruling relates to Assange's complaint to the court that his extradition was requested by the US over his political views.

Dame Victoria reiterates that a previous ruling accepted that Assange's motives in publishing secret military files "were political".

But she adds that Assange's argument "conflates" his motives with those of the US in seeking to have him extradited.

"The two are distinct," she says, adding:

Thomas Mackintosh
Live reporter

I have been going through some of the details in the High Court's 66-page judgement - in particular what the judges have mentioned about the death penalty.

In summary, it says the home secretary agrees, if extradited, Julian Assange "could be charged with offences that carry the death penalty and that there is nothing then to prevent the death penalty from being imposed".

The judgement adds:

Continuing, Stella Assange tells the crowd outside the High Court that Julian Assange, her husband, "is a political prisoner".

"He is a journalist and he is being persecuted because he exposed the true cost of war in human lives," she adds.

She says his case is "a signal to all of you that if you expose the interests that are driving war they will come after you".

Assange says the Biden administration should not submit assurances to the High Court and "should drop this shameful case".

"This is a shame on every democracy," she says.

Concluding her address, she shouts: "Free Julian! I ask everyone to rally behind him."

Image source, PA Media

Speaking outside the High Court, Julian Assange's wife has just been giving her reaction to the judgement.

Stella Assange says she is "astounded" by the court's decision to delay her husband's appeal.

She reminds people that Assange has been held in Belmarsh prison for almost five years without charge adding the judgement highlights Assange "remains exposed to the death penalty"

"Yet what the courts have done is to invite a political intervention from the US," she adds.

"I find this astounding."

Callum May
BBC News

Julian Assange faces a further wait to see whether he can appeal against his extradition to the United States on 18 charges relating to the publication of sensitive intelligence.

Two judges at the High Court in London said they would give the United States government three weeks to provide assurances that Assange could rely on the First Amendment to the US constitution (which protects free speech) and that he would not be prejudiced at trial or sentence by reason of his Australian nationality; nor would he be sentenced to death if convicted.

"If those assurances are not given, then leave to appeal will be given and there will then be an appeal hearing," a summary of the judgment said.

The judges however dismissed some grounds of the application to appeal, including Assange’s arguments that he was prosecuted because of his political opinions.

Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson ordered that another hearing on May 20 would decide whether the USA had satisfied the conditions they had requested.