(Not really ready for prime time...)

First, some background: on Oct. 22 Joe Lauria at Consortiumnews.org had reported:
‘Chief Justice of England & Wales, Who Blocked Lauri Love Extradition, Joins Bench for Assange Hearing’; The most senior judge in England and Wales, who let activist Lori Love evade extradition to the U.S. on humanitarian grounds, will join Lord Justice Timothy Holroyde at the U.S. appeal hearing against Julian Assange next week.’

No one in the comments had asked how it works with an even number of judges works in their system. No tie-breaking vote?

“Instead they recommended that Love be tried in the United Kingdom on charges of hacking into U.S. government computers. (The U.S. then dropped the charges.) Unlike Love, Assange is accused of no crimes in Britain. But like Love, he has been deemed (by the magistrate’s court) at high risk of suicide if he were to be extradited to the United States.”

Given that she’d ruled that even though she agreed with the Prosecution on virtually every other issue: January 4, 2021, assangedefence.org:

‘Judge blocks the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States, ruling the abusive U.S. prison system could not protect him from suicide’:

“Judge Vanessa Baraitser agreed with the defense’s claims that the U.S. prison conditions Assange would face if he were extradited, including solitary confinement, Special Administrative Measures, and extreme restrictions at ADX Florence, would drive Assange to suicide. She ruled it would therefore be unjust to extradite Assange to the U.S. and ordered his release.

The U.S. will appeal the decision.’