Gary McKinnon has met today with his legal solicitors Kaim Todner, and has been given printouts of the various bits of correspondence and messages of support which have been forwarded to him via their office.
What is still missing is a written copy of the Bail Conditions.
Apart from the £5000 bail, and the restriction on applying for a Passport or travel document, which are fair enough conditions to ensure his appearance at the next extradition hearing, there is also the controversial ban on using the Internet.
He also has to sign in to a Police Station every day, and to sleep at his home address, although there is no curfew, per se.
It does appear that the District Judge Christopher Pratt said that Gary was banned from using "any computer connected to the internet".
Presumably the Judge does not understand that nowadays, in the 21st century, every Mobile Phone and Plain Old Telephone System landline, is part of a "computer connected to the internet". Was it really his intention to impose such a draconian bail condition ?
Gary has had literally years since his first arrest, when he could have abused his unrestricted access to the internet or to the phone system, but obviously, he has not done so. What possible bearing does this bail condition have on the forthcoming extradition hearing ?
For an IT worker this also makes finding a job almost impossible, and it hampers his attempts to gather support for his legal defence. Since the prosecution are not similarly constrained from using the internet, this "inequality of arms" could be construed as breaching Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to a fair trial, as enacted by the UK Human Rights Act 1998.
As with the people currently under Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 Control Orders, if there is reasonable suspicion of involvement in further alleged serious crimes, then the authorities can apply for a phone and or internet tap warrant signed by the Home Secretary. Banning someone from using the Internet or a Phone would be counterproductive, in terms of any intelligence gathering.
If such a warrant is already in place, on Gary's exisiting mobile phones and internet accounts, in order to see if he complies with the bail conditions, then he might as well be allowed to make use of them, knowing for sure that they are being monitored, and that, say, legally priviliged correspondence between him and his lawyers is safeguarded under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).
If his phones and internet accounts are being monitored , but without a warrant signed by Home Secretary Charles Clarke, then whoever is doing this monitoring, even if they work for the UK Police or secret services, is breaking the law, and faces up to 2 years in jail.
There are fewer legal safeguards under RIPA concerning Communications Data i.e. traffic analysis, itemised phone bills, who emails who, which websites have been visited etc.