The British and Irish Legal Institute website has the text of Lord Justice Stanley Burnton and Mr. Justice Wilkie's refusal to allow Gary McKinnon's case to be certified to go up to the Supreme Court on appeal.
McKinnon, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Home Affairs [2009] EWHC 2449 (Admin) (09 October 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2449.html
Cite as: [2009] EWHC 2449 (Admin)[...]
Lord Justice Stanley Burnton :
Introduction
1. Following the handing down of judgment in this case and on the Claimant's application for permission to apply for judicial review against the Director of Public Prosecutions, we gave directions for the parties to file and to serve written submissions on the Claimant's application for certification of points of law of general public importance and for leave to appeal. In addition, the Claimant sought an oral hearing in the event that the Court was minded to refuse his applications.
[...]
Article 8
3.
[...]
We therefore refuse permission to apply for judicial review on the Article 8 ground and, it follows, there cannot be a certificate on a point of law on Article 8. In these circumstances, no question of leave to appeal on this ground arises.
Article 3
[...]
5. For the same reason, i.e. that the extradition of the Claimant will not, on the evidence before us, involve or result in treatment that will breach his rights under Article 3, we do not consider that his case raises the points of general public importance suggested by the Claimant in paragraph 1.5 of his submission dated 22 August 2009.
Conclusion
6. In these circumstances, we refuse permission to apply for judicial review against the Secretary of State on the ground of alleged breach of the Claimant's rights under Article 8, and we decline to certify any point of law of general public importance. It follows that we refuse permission to appeal.
Another legal hearing, soley on points of law, on which the learned Judges have virtually no scope for interpreting things in Gary's favour, due to the catch all wording and the political unwillingness of the Labour Home Secretaries to stand up for British justice when they had the opportunity to do so during the bureaucratic Extradition Act 2003 Part 2 Extradition to Category 2 territories legal process.
Note that there were only opportunities to make written legal submissions on "points of law" in this hearing, and no actual forensic evidence or witnesses or the facts of the case against Gary were examined by the Judges or the prosecution or defence lawyers.
What now ? Another attempt to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ? On what grounds ?
The European Court of Human Rights refused to hear the previous attempt to appeal under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), back in August 2009.
See the Human Rights Act 2000 Schedule 1 The Articles:
[...]
Article 3 Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
[...]
Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life
1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
[...]
Once the tories are back in power they are going to review this unfair extradition procedure and not other party will now allow this particular extradition to take place so - what would happen say, if Gary was to commit some other minor crime in the meantime just to tide things over until the one eyed moron and his corrupt cronies are removed from office? Gary is more than welcome to give me a right hook to the face - I'll make a complaint about it and I'm sure we can draw out the legal process until June next year!
@ Stu - surely there are far more deserving targets of a punch on the snout ?
Politicians and promises: President Barack Obama promised to close down the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp, during his election campaign, but it is still in operation a year later.
You cannot bar McKinnon from appealing against the decisions made through his case, it is his fundamental right.
He can in theory because I am not educated in law take his case to the European court of human rights and to the universal version for human rights.
HE CAN ALWAYS APPEAL
He knew when he promised that particular promise, it wouldn't be as easy as all that. Hundreds of prisoners who, if they were innocent before, will now be hating America, and now need to have a country found to take them because obviously America wouldn't want them on their soil!
I'm prepared to give Barack the benefit of doubt, but what did amaze me was his Nobel peace prize! Where did that come from for goodness sake! The deadline for the nomination for the prize was only 2 weeks after he had taken office! He said himself he didn't deserve it and he's damn right!
But the point in the previous post was a serious one - if he commited another minor crime - would that keep him in the UK while the current administration draw out their last days in office?
Gary and his Mother have already suffered enough.
The sooner we're rid of this stupid government,
the better, and the way they put America before
our own people!The 'USA' should thank Gary for
drawing attention to the weakness in their
Security Systems!It's obvious Gary has a great
talent that could be put to better use,instead
of valuable time wasted sitting in a jail
where he doesn't belong.
I can't understand why anti-terrorism laws are being invoked by the US in Gary's case. As I understand it, there's no suggestion that Gary ever caused any damage. His offence seems to have been one of trespassing rather than terrorism. I just don't believe this is a serious enough situation to warrant extradition.
Are the US authorities embarrassed and ashamed about their lack of computer security? Is that the motivation for extraditing Gary? Or are they looking for a scapegoat? I honestly don't understand why they are pursuing this extradition, but I think it makes them appear rather foolish.
The British government must work to find a way to deny this extradition. There are no reasonable grounds for it.
"It's obvious Gary has a great
talent that could be put to better use,instead
of valuable time wasted sitting in a jail
where he doesn't belong." Wilf October 11, 2009 10:27 AM
I agree with this, just give him a job in IT security with some detention maybe, but not extradition. He is a good specialist.
Before 1066, there were seven kingdoms. They formed a confederation that respected the state-rights of the other members of the confederation. What we're saddled with today is a New World Order with the U.S. as the leader and Britain as the follower. Unbelievable as it is, Lady Thatcher wrote in her big book that that was exactly what she wanted. She got it.
Gary's plight proves that we should have a world "Confederation." There's examples that already work, such as the Common Wealth, the United Nations, that Thing the Russians and Chinese are working on in Asia, the E.U., etc. There is a deliberate attempt to thwart (N.A.T.O. - the Anti-Confederation) a world based upon respect and cooperation. Even Lady Thatcher was fooled. Gary and other victims are the undeniable result.
If Gary is extradited and Polanski remains in Europe, will we all forget both of them 10 years from now, just as we've forgotten what worked for England more than 1,000 years ago?
Hey Gary - The Department of Homeland Security announced last week that it will be hiring 1,000 new online security professionals during the next three years. Interested? Apply online - http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/careers/content_multi_image_0017.shtm
Just a thought to cheer you up.
Hack the Planet!
while i have sympthy for Gary, why didnt he think of the possible punishment before doing the act. If someone is clever enough to "hack" into US military website then surely they are clever enough to find out about the possible punishment for doing something which is not right.
Would it be fair to assume those who refuse to nul the extradition procedure and are ignore his rights are complicit in the covert alien agenda ?
There are no grounds to extradite him, the US military have ALL the evidence they could wish to find over the last 7 years.
They have publicly stated he will fry in jail for at least 70 years.
He has zero chance of a fair trial in the US.
Can Gary seek asylum in the EU under Asylum laws to prevent him being taken to a country where they have publicly effectively stated he has no chance of a fair trial?
If the legal process defies any logic or reason in its refusal to address the issues, then I would argue possible complicity ?
Global Elite scenario ?
Gary didn't have intent to break the law, that's why he didn't research the penalties for breaking the law. That's something else in his favour.
Reply to J ::
The military sites that were accessed were not breached at all, the default administrator account was active and you did not require a password to enter;) This is not hacking, nay, but the result of incompitent administrators and security chiefs who should be held liable for 911!
Hacking is where you reverse engineer a running application in order to discover a zero day vulnerability to subvert in hopes of gaining access and producing a stack overflow which inadvertantly runs some nasty code designed for a 'special purpose'.
Another thing for sure - J - if the access was as 'clever' as you imagined, might Gary be 'clever' enough to not get caught? Think about it. If you were an evil hacker that was bent on causing all forms of mayhem would not the first item on the agenda be how not to ever be caught? What fun would that be if you wanted to be a menace to society for personal reasons for years and years - and you get caught the first time?
Besides which. As a person who has been inside and out of many networks on this planet I can tell you that there is information that is being concealed from the public that should not be concealed. Critical information such as how much public money is being spent on 'special programs' and what these 'special programs' are all about. I believe the only way to stop this is to open government. But what they are promoting is an even more secretive system. Thus all the hype about hackers.
Ellie Hart (pardon my Russian), is HOS right about a conspiracy? There's a secret society that has a test for its 33rd degree. If you refuse the request you're told you passed and if you do the request you're told you passed.
I went to your excellent site and saw
"Alberta Calgary: Eau Claire Market food court by the bland yellow wall. 6 pm"
If we stand with our backs against the wall at 6 pm, do we pass or pass?
Gary obviously intended to break the law when he set out on his detective/research mission, he is a very intelligent man and was fully aware of the potential consequences. This is why I find Gary to be a real Brit gentleman for standing up to the consequences with hands held up willing to accept the punishment. So if Gary can be a gentleman about it why can our government not? This one sided extradition law is ridiculous that fact it isn't officially ratified under US law and directly contradicts the US Constitution alone should be enough fire power for our government to stand up and tell US to take a hike, and for the US citizens to be in uproar for such laws being forced to a sovereign nation and ally of theirs. He is one of our citizens for gods sake!! What is the point of citizenship and paying taxes and nationality if your own country and government won't protect you? It is things like this that often makes me ashamed to be English. UK has the power and the lawful given right to flip the proverbial bird to US and tear up the ridiculous, sickening extradition agreement. It was founded on lies created during and after 9/11 for terrorists, does ANYBODY truly believe Gary is a terrorist?
Let's create a simile for this situation...
If a child steals a toy from another child who lives 5 streets down, does that give the victims parents the right to demand the offending child be sent round alone to be punished by the parents of the victim?
Or should the parents of the offending child deal the punishment themselves?
Now I'm not sure if it's just me but I think that simile is fitting, as our government is supposed to be our parental figure so to speak as they are there to take care of us and work for us and provide for us, we are essentially their children (tax paying increasingly in debt children but nonetheless children) it is the duty and right of our parents to stand up for us and defend us and deal us the punishment they see fit when we have wronged.
And if our government/parental figures/leaders are not willing to defend one of their own then they should have their responsibilities/position/jobs/titles/pay etc taken away from them (we do this with "unfit" parents everyday with child services)
I am only 24 from a council estate in Manchester, I went to bad schools and got bad grades yet I am able to see the implications and problems this extradition law is causing and will cause, how is it our MP's and Judges for the most part do not? This unsettles me in a deeply uncomfortable way.
So to tie up this rant before it becomes an essay, MP's do your job and punish Gary HERE or get the fuck out of parliament as you do not deserve to be there and we do not want you there!
(sorry for foul language but it is the only word I could think of to describe my anger at this given time)
Good luck Gary I truly hope you are not let down by our governing body, I am behind your fight every step of the way.
Adam
Honeybear
Sorry to dissapoint - If there is a conspiracy, I don't know about it, and if there is a conspiracy I am sure that I either failed misserably (same as my psychological profile) or I am their greatest threat.
There is, however, some awfully greedy people on this planet who tend to get into politics (like pedofiles to priests) to unethically abuse their powers in their own $$$ favor. While all the sheep stand around in a daze.
No - I am not dilusional - sane minus a high IQ. And the 2600 club you refer to is an international hackers club, of which I own ALL of Canada. We get together and discuss all things related to IT security, all are invited, nothing illegal transpires.
Elle
All I have to say?..........let it go to court in the U.S. Make sure it is public as Federal court is supposed to. I would be very curious to see what information is made during "Discovery" phase of the case.....come on....dare them. If they were smart, they would put him on payroll and use his talents. Give em hell Gary!!! The Truth is out there!! And Gary saw it.
Somewhere in Britain, maybe London, is a defector from the G.R.U. who likes to roll around on ant-hills. He wrote in a book (one of several that he wrote) that Russians are in the habit of addressing people by their full name, Ellie Hart. If I were ever in a pub, I might be in a situation to help MI5.
When anyone wants to stand me up against a pale yellow pocked-marked wall in some Calgary, Alberta culdesac, even after being handed a large Mocha with whip cream by a French speaking Quebecre, waiting for The 2600 to drive up in their Peugots, I'm a little suspicious. Can you blame me?
Many years ago I worked for a data entry company with dozens of work stations. It used D.O.S. Another company, that I worked at on behalf of Xerox, used a mini-computer that not only used D.O.S., but used 8" floppy discs. I'm wondering if there's an IT security conspiracy to move All of the World away from D.O.S. (which is an open system thanks to I.B.M.) and onto a single O.S. where victims like Gary can be manipulated even in the political sphere. It's chilling.
The US ratified the treaty in 2007. After much harassment from Baroness Scotland.