The official Home Office "washing of hands" view of the Gary McKinnon extradition case

  • Posted on
  • by
  • in

This is the sort of Pontius Pilate like "washing of hands" which the Home Office and Labour Government politicians engage in over the Gary McKinnon extradition case.

Home Office

Joan Ryan MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
2 Marsham Street, London. SW1P 4DF
www.homeoffice.gov.uk

27 April 2007

Chris McCafferty MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

CTS Reference: M8674/7
Your Reference: 01070303


Dear Chris

Thank you for your letter of 16 April tothe Home Secretary on behalf of {name of constituent] concerninhg the request from the United States for the extradition of Gary McKinnon who satnds accused of computer "hacking" I am replying as the Minister responsible for extradition matters.

Thhe UK has important obligations in the area of extradition. It takes those obligations seriously. Where, as here, a request for extradition is made, those obligations become engaged and make it our duty to assist within of course what the law permit. Legislation permits extradition for conduct comitted outside the requesting state, as with the case of Gary McKinnonThis is a vital provision to combat the increasingly global natire of serious crime.

This legislation is the notorious Extradition Act 2003, which was passed by the Labour Government after Gary was arrested in 2002.

Except that what Gary is accused of is not necessarily serious crime especially regarding the alleged amount of financial damage.

The UK Computer Misuse Act 1990 ,also covers computer "hacking" in foreign countries from the UK, should take precedence.

Any decision on whether to launch a prosecution in this country is for the UK's independent prosecuting authorities, such as the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The Home Office has no prosecutorial role.

Who believes that in a case involving the US Military and Intelligence agencies, the Home Office was not consulted by the CPS or that their views were ignored ?

The brief chronology at this stage is that, following proceedings before Coty of Westminster Magistrates' Court, a District Judge sent the case to us in May 2006 for a decision as to Mr McKinnon's surrender.

The Act affords an opportunity at that stage for the person to make representations against surrender. We considered Mr McKinnon's representations with care before deciding on 4 July 2006 to order his surrender to the USA.

Lots of people took the trouble to write and make repreresntations on behalf of Gary McKinnon at this time, so many, that the Home Office stopped sending individual replies.

See the PledgeBank pledge: "I will Make a Representation to the Home Secretary on behalf of Gary McKinnon

He then appealed to the High Court, both against the decision of the District Judge and against our decision to order surrender. Those appeals were dismissed on 3 April.

As is his right Mr McKinnon has now lodged an application with the High Court for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. While the case remains before the courts, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further, other than to note from this chronology that the outcome of it will have been subject to the fullest procedural protection and scrutiny.

Yours sincerly

Joan Ryan

Throughout this entire extradition process, thanks to the notorious Extradition Act 2003, no actual prima facie evidence about the alleged amount of financial damage, which would determine whether or not the case is treated as a serious and therefore extraditable one, or not, has been presented to a British court, where it could be challenged by the defence lawyers, as used to be the procedure under the old extradition rules between the USA and the UK, for decades.