London judge Vanessa Baraitser decided to deny the United States' request to extradite Julian Assange.
For me and many others who followed the process, this decision was a complete surprise.
Throughout the trial, Judge Baraitser consistently supported the American representatives.
In any dispute, she was for them and against Assange's lawyers.
She did not miss the opportunity to express her disdain and dislike for Assange and his defenders.
What happened?
Is this the case of the apostle Paul on his way to Damascus?
Suddenly her eyes opened, and she realized all the erroneousness of her views?
Unlikely.
In her decision, she left no stone unturned on all the arguments of the defense.
They said it was political persecution, she decided not.
They said that this case was not covered by the extradition treaty.
She decided - provided.
They said that Assange was facing a biased trial in the United States.
She decided - nothing of the kind.
Etc.
Why didn't she?
Because he is mentally unwell and can commit suicide in an American prison, where supervision is not as reliable as in a British prison.
How to understand the meaning of this decision, and what can Assange now expect, after the decision was announced to the super-strict Belmarsh prison, where he is listed as A9379AY?
We will understand this on Wednesday, January 6, when the judge is to rule on his release on bail.
If she agrees to release him, albeit with restrictions and even with a large amount of bail, then we can rejoice.
Not only for Assange, but also for the victory of justice and justice, for the triumph of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and even for the liberation of the United Kingdom from the notorious title of "American poodle".
If (which, alas, is more likely) she refuses to be released, then her decision will have only one meaning.
An experienced career woman, Judge Baraitser decided to withdraw herself from a decision that would undoubtedly affect her career and position in society.
Many influential people in England are demanding the release of Assange and are opposed to his extradition.
The case will now go to a higher court for an American appeal of its decision.
Let that court decide, she thought: the giraffe is big - he knows better.
The case would still have been appealed by Assange's defenders if she had decided otherwise.
And if so, why risk your career, turn people against yourself and make an unpopular decision?
It is easier to transfer the case to a higher authority, and leave Julian in a British prison for several more years.
The Americans will also be satisfied with this decision.
It will derail the possibility of a presidential pardon by Trump, which has been talked about for the past two weeks.
Trump will look like an idiot if he pardons a person who has been refused extradition.
We do not know if Trump was going to pardon Assange (unlikely), but Baraitser's move practically blocks this course of things.
Julian will not be brought to the United States during Trump's term, nor will he be able to boast of this achievement.
And after Biden's accession, Assange, if he lives, will be sent to America, and Mrs. Baraitser will be able to congratulate herself on a wise decision.
However, there is not long to wait - on Wednesday we will find out what exactly happened on Monday: the triumph of justice or a cunning and insidious move, of those for which England is famous.
And yet it is difficult not to rejoice in the hope of a better end to this epic.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.