Julian Assange - latest: Wikileaks founder put people at ‘grave and imminent risk’, court hears

US authorities are opposing Mr Assange’s bid for an appeal, telling the court his case is “unarguable” and should not be allowed to proceed to a full hearing.

Lawyer Clair Dobbin KC, for the US, urged the judges to consider the “fundamental assumption of good faith” on the part of states with which the UK has “long established extradition relations”.

“The US is one of the most long-standing partners of the UK,” she told the court. She insisted that then-district judge Vanessa Baraitser, in her 2021 ruling, had “rejected outright” that that the appellant should treated as a journalist of someone akin to a journalist, adding that US law did not protect journalists from breaking the law.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should face espionage charges in the United States because he put innocent lives at risk and went beyond journalism in his effort to solicit, steal and indiscriminately publish classified official US documents, lawyers for the American government have argued.

American prosecutors allege Assange encouraged and helped US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to steal diplomatic cables and military files that WikiLeaks later published, putting lives at risk.

Lawyer Clair Dobbin told the High Court that Assange damaged US security and intelligence services, and “created a grave and imminent risk” by releasing the hundreds of thousands of documents — risks that could harm and lead to the arbitrary detention of innocent people, many of whom lived in war zones or under repressive regimes.

She said that in encouraging Manning and others to hack into government computers and steal from them, Assange was “going a very considerable way beyond” a journalist gathering information.

He was “not someone who has just set up an online box to which people can provide classified information,” she said. “The allegations are that he sought to encourage theft and hacking that would benefit WikiLeaks.”

Assange is being prosecuted for publishing sources’ names and not his political opinions, lawyers representing the United States have told the High Court.

Clair Dobbin told the court: “The appellant’s prosecution might be unprecedented, but what he did was unprecedented.”

Assange “indiscriminately and knowingly published to the world the names of individuals who acted as sources of information to the US”, Ms Dobbin said.

“It is these facts which distinguish him, not his political opinions,” she added.

She said his prosecution was “based on the rule of law and evidence”.

Assange was again not in court again today, nor watching remotely because he was unwell, his lawyers and his wife Stella Assange said.

His lawyers say he could be given a sentence of up to 175 years, but it is likely to be up to 40 years. US prosecutors have said it would be no more than 63 months.

If Assange wins this case, a full appeal hearing will be held.

If he loses, his only remaining option would be at the European Court of Human Rights and his wife has said his lawyers would apply to the European judges for an emergency injunction if necessary.

The hearing has now ended and the judges have risen.

Dame Victoria Sharp told the court they would reserve their decision.

Around 20 environmental protesters have been staging a sit-in inside the Royal Courts of Justice after the two-day hearing for Assange finished.

Court staff have begun removing them from the building.

Earlier, pro-Assange protesters demonstrated in front of the court.

The protesters who staged a sit-in at the court were campaigning for what they said was “a makeover” of the justice system.

Their demands encompassed the rights of protesters against climate change and the bombardment of Gaza, as well as the banks and water companies.

More than 100 people sat down in the central hall at the Royal Courts of Justice, claiming to hold “peaceful People’s Assemblies or Citizens Juries”.

“The Assembly has been prompted by the Attorney General’s application, being heard in court today, to stop juries acquitting people taking direct action against climate change and for peace in Gaza,” the organisers said.

“But it will also include consideration of the wider legal landscape, including the Post Office scandal, the lack of legal accountability for the bosses of the banks responsible for the financial crisis of 2008, the bosses of the oil and water companies that have caused so much destruction to our land, air and waters, and for the Ministers responsible for violations of international agreements, including the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, the Refugee Convention and UN rulings on Gaza.”

Taking photographs in court is illegal, but the group posted photos online of their sit-in.

We are closing our live coverage for now.