Wednesday 10th May 2006 set for the next Gary McKinnon extradition hearing

It looks as if today's appearance by Gary McKinnon before Bow Street Magistrates' Court has ended up being adjourned until Wednesday 10th May 2006.

ZDNet have the first report:

Wednesday 12th April 2006

NASA hacker to hear fate next month

Tom Espiner
ZDNet UK
April 12, 2006, 18:05 BST

Gary McKinnon's fight to avoid extradition to the US to face hacking charges continues, after an unsigned note from the US Embassy was produced in court on Wednesday

[...]

On Wednesday, the prosecution produced an unsigned note from the US Embassy, which they claimed was a guarantee that McKinnon would not be tried under Military Order Number One, which allows suspected terrorists to be tried under military law.

However, the defence argued that the note was not binding as it was unsigned. The defence called Clive Stafford-Smith, a US lawyer who has defended Guantanamo Bay inmates, as a witness. Stafford-Smith argued that the note would not prevent McKinnon from being treated as a terrorist.

[...]

The case was adjourned until 10 May, when a final decision will be made on whether McKinnon will be extradited.

[...]

Remember that no actual evidence of the fact or the extent of any alleged damage to computer systems has been presented to this British extradition hearing, because of the unfair Extradition Act 2003 treaty with the USA.

There are a couple of precedents where a British Court has accepted such an "unsigned diplomatic note" in other extradition case to the USA, even though it is not binding on the executive power of the President.

However, this is a slightly different case, so there may still be a chance that the Judge will not accept this "unsigned note", in which case it is unlikely that Gary would be extradited, as this would contravene his right to a fair trial under the UK Human Rights Act 19gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm#sch1" target="_hraa6">Article 6 the European Convention on Human Rights.
, something which, given the existance of the counter-productive Guantanamo Bay and other military internment camps, cannot be guaranteed.

ARTICLE 6

RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Almost none of these rights would be available to Gary or to anyone else who was extradited to the USA and then held under Military Tribunal Order No. 1, i.e. like the Guantanamo Bay detainees.

UPDATE: A BBC report is now online..