The founder of WikiLeaks faces charges of espionage in the US and rape in Sweden. He should stand trial for rape

The US government has brought further charges against Julian Assange now that he is prison in London. These charges, under the Espionage Act, cover his dealings with Chelsea Manning in 2010 and 2011, when Ms Manning was still serving in the US army. After she had sent him some files for her own reasons, Mr Assange, according to the indictment, urged Ms Manning to get hold of and pass over further classified documents, which WikiLeaks published almost unredacted. The Guardian disapproved of the mass publication of unredacted documents at the time, and broke with Mr Assange over the issue. But whether or not the documents should have been published, their publication should not be punished by the American justice system, which could impose a cumulative sentence of 180 years on the latest charges.

Mr Assange is an unattractive character who has quarrelled with almost all his former supporters. Few will be enthusiastic about defending him. Yet he must be defended against this extradition request because the indictments against him threaten to damage freedom and democracy in both Britain and the US.

From a US perspective, the Espionage Act is quite the wrong instrument to use against journalists or even their sources. The Obama administration considered deploying it against Mr Assange but decided against it on the grounds that it would bring to a point a dangerous and perfectly avoidable conflict between the first amendment, which guarantees freedom of the press, and the Espionage Act, passed in a fever of xenophobia in 1917.

From a British perspective, the extradition request raises another difficulty. It seems certain that Mr Assange’s treatment in the American penal system would be more cruel than anything he might encounter even in our shameful prisons.

Ms Manning, a much more sympathetic character, was held in solitary confinement for years and is now once more imprisoned and threatened with ruinous fines for refusing to testify before a grand jury.

The case of Lauri Love, a British hacker charged with breaking into American systems, provides a helpful precedent here: the judge there ruled that he should stand trial in Britain, in part because of the risk of suicide in the US.

Then there is the rape charge process that Mr Assange faces in Sweden and which led him to seek refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in the first place. This is serious and deserves a proper trial, which will never happen if he is sent to America.

Ultimately, the decision on his future will lie with the home secretary, who may well still be Sajid Javid by the time it must be made. Mr Javid should defend the principle at stake and send Mr Assange to Sweden at the end of his sentence here.

• This article was amended on 27 May 2019: to omit a misinterpretation of a remark by Chelsea Manning; and to clarify that the Swedish rape charge process is ongoing.