Can you believe that a public authority wiped out the email account of the lead lawyer in a major legal case while it was still active? And for over six years, they wouldn’t conduct a proper investigation into how that account disappeared? When they finally got around to looking into it, they were too late to save most records about the account’s deletion.
This isn’t fictional; this happened in the Julian Assange case. The UK authorities eventually performed an investigation to figure out the when, how, and why behind the disappearance of the email account belonging to Paul Close, the lead lawyer from the Crown Prosecution Service who was handling interactions with Sweden concerning allegations against Assange.
Close advised Swedish prosecutors not to question Assange in London after Sweden issued an extradition request linked to rape charges. That advice contributed to Assange’s prolonged detention in London and an ongoing investigation in Sweden. As of now, all allegations against him have been closed, and he secured his freedom in June 2024, but many questions linger.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had to take a closer look after a ruling in January 2025 by Judge Foss required them to dig up anything about Close’s deleted emails. This order followed a persistent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit led by investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi and her barrister, Estelle Dehon KC. They uncovered in 2017 that important documents had been destroyed.
Initially, the CPS shared some of Close’s correspondence from paper files but admitted there were significant gaps in the timeline. They claimed that if there were other emails, they weren’t printed or preserved, and the digital versions were deleted when Close retired. Since 2017, Maurizi and her team have been on a quest to find out what was lost and whether anything could still be recovered.
The missing documents are particularly critical. They cover key moments, like when Sweden issued a European arrest warrant in December 2010, when Assange sought refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in June 2012, and when he was granted asylum in August 2012. Keir Starmer was director of public prosecutions at that time, but over a decade of FOIA requests yielded no proof that Close acted under Starmer’s direction.
After their latest searches, the CPS revealed a few details. They acknowledged that the last login to Close’s account was March 31, 2014, but they can’t pinpoint the exact deletion date. Neither the CPS’s former IT provider nor its extradition unit has any records regarding the account’s deletion. They had known since September 2017 that the account was gone, with a CPS security official stating that all related data had been permanently erased.
The CPS insisted the deletion followed standard protocol after Close’s retirement in March 2014. Yet, from 2017 to 2023, they ignored repeated inquiries and gave confusing answers regarding the timing of the emails’ destruction.
Only in 2023, prompted by Judge O’Connor’s order for greater clarity on the document destruction, did the CPS share a “leavers process document.” According to them, this document justified Close’s account deletion per their standard procedures for handling accounts when employees retired. However, if this document existed and was legitimate, why didn’t anyone mention it during six years of litigation? Why the delay in providing this information, and why did it take two judges’ rulings to ensure compliance?
Had the CPS taken requests seriously from the start, essential data might have remained accessible for analysis. Estelle Dehon KC, representing Maurizi in the FOIA battle, remarked that the tribunal ruling underscored CPS’s failure to address their inquiries appropriately.
There are questions around the authenticity of the leavers process document. To verify it and the email that circulated it, they need the associated metadata, but the CPS has balked at providing that. Judge Foss ruled in the CPS’s favor concerning metadata requests.
Metadata could reveal critical details, such as when and how emails were sent, and even confirm their authenticity. According to Steven Murdoch, a security engineering professor, these email headers can disclose the integrity of an email, possible alterations, and the identity of the sender.