Britain’s Supreme Court has refused to hear WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s appeal against a lower court ruling ordering his extradition to the United States to face charges under the US Espionage Act. The case will now be forwarded to Home Affairs Minister Priti Patel for a final decision, unless Assange’s legal team appeals further.

Assange has four weeks to turn over his communications to Patel, which is the equivalent of asking the devil for mercy. He can also try to appeal the original court decision from the first court to hear his case – Magistrates Court – and sided with the US Government’s extradition request on every point but one, which for medical reasons – which the US has now successfully redone.

His lawyer outlined the basis for such an appeal in April last year, alleging that a pseudo-legal prank charge of heroic journalists had been imposed. They argue that Assange’s extradition is being sought illegally for political offences, which are prohibited under the extradition treaty between the United States and Britain; constitutes a violation of legal process; contravenes Article 3 (inhumane and degrading treatment), Article 5 (wrongful detention), Article 6 (denial of a fair trial), Article 7 (retroactive justice) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights ( ECHR); based on a misrepresentation of facts; and that he is being persecuted by higher political motives.

Assange’s legal team have also indicated they will be able to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

Assange’s life is in grave danger. Neither of these appeals is likely to be granted, and even such rights and formal legal process would not continue to be considered secure. Assange’s prosecution has always been the “legal” continuation of the unlawful killings and extradition operations organized by the CIA, to silence Assange once and for all, one way or another.

The timeline has now accelerated dramatically. The Supreme Court’s decision came suddenly, without prior notice. That the court even refuses to hear Assange’s case is highly unusual. A lower court on January 24 confirmed that a “public interest legal point” had been brought by Assange, which usually causes the Supreme Court to consider an appeal.

The relevant legal point is: “Under what circumstances can the appellate court accept a guarantee from the requesting state, which has not been brought before a court of first instance.” Even on a limited basis, this case was deemed worthy of investigation by the Court of Appeal and legal experts in the field.