My friend is not a rapist

My take on Julian Assange's recent extradition ruling in the UK is that the judges failed to sufficiently analyse the evidence. They only looked at the demands of the law, and the way it was structured, which meant the European arrest warrant was a box-ticking exercise for both sides of the case.

The only thing they raised questions about were a number of legal procedures. On many grounds, the judges said themselves, they weren't able to look at evidence, all they were concerned about was whether what they did met obligations under the UK-Sweden treaty, that allows for extradition without consent from the UK or minimum tests.

What about the evidence, though? We can look at, for example, the voracity of the claims made against Julian - some of the 'facts' of the case were quite arcane, some even amusing. I'm sure that in any court, in most other countries, the claim to have Julian arrested and deported would beg the question of sufficient justification.

Remember that each day in courth, he's accruing significant legal costs, and as he doesn't have a pot it's a very awkward situation. Money's being held from him by Visa and others - and that's left him without any resources. In addition, he was ill-advised by his original lawyers who said it was not practical for him to claim defence purchased by the state, probably ill-conceived advice. It meant they could earn in the region of £600,000 pounds, despite a commitment by them to do it pro bono. That's not been widely reported but it's true.

It had been suggested to WikiLeaks that they should employ a high-powered lawyer. However, the difficulty was they promised to do it pro bono, they then turned around and said they'd charge. By that point you don't change your case - you have to carry on. Then they were hit with this enormous bill, four times legitimate costs, because they knew he was desperate to have a proper defence. The client must know what the estimated bills will be, but this information was never provided. The first bills came through in the hundreds of thousands, and people's mouths fell open and hit the floor.

It was really shocking and disturbing – as a client you want to feel comfortable, you don't want feel like you're being used by what is an extremely wealthy law firm. That was a significant problem for Julian.

One thing that Julian told me in the early days of these court appearances was that everybody would want a piece of him, and that was very accurate advice. I've chaired major public meetings and press conferences where there were hundreds (in one case six hundred) of reporters from all around the world, there were only three questions – all about the controversies. They all wanted pictures, to say they'd seen him like some sort of movie star. He got up to a board with a pointer and began explaining to the conference about how the site was constructed - no-one was interested. Julian's publicity has often been very bad, most importantly by the press itself, who were interested in his personality, not WikiLeaks' journalism. Suddenly he became the story - being called an egomaniac - I don't think he asked for any of the publicity he's had. That's mostly a tabloid idea. Here they can call him names, denounce him and much worse, reporting events selectively which makes him look bad or unpleasant. Only three weeks ago there were stories about his financial problems implying, ironically, that he was opaque.

Suddenly you can understand why, for example, journalists were suspicious of the rape allegations - they came a week after the major disclosure of certain documents by WikiLeaks. I thought to myself how convenient these charges were, suddenly emerging in this cluttered landscape. Knowing the man as I do, I see these charges as almost inconceivable. I regard him as a friend, and I don't have any friends who are rapists. I find the idea repulsive, and he's certainly not that type of guy. All of us who get to know him know that. He's been transparent with the legal allegations, offering to make a full testimony on Skype, which was turned down by the other side of the case.

There are many who despise WikiLeaks, people who are finding ways to shut it down. If that means putting someone in jail, then I'm sure they'd be glad to do it. He may now be forced to go a country where he doesn't have any real protection.