Order by the Honourable Mr Justice Mitting granting permission for Judicial review of the Gary McKinnon extradition to the USA case

  • Posted on
  • by fg
  • in


In the High Court of Justice
Queen's Bench Division
Administrative Court


CO Ref: CO/15072/2009

In the matter of an application for Judicial Review


The Queen on the application of GARY MCKINNON

versus

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

NOTIFICATION of the Judge's decision (CPR Part 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant {and the Acknowledgment(s) of service filed by the Defendant and / or Interested Party]

Order by the Honourable Mr Justice Mitting

Permission is hereby granted

Observations:

This claim raises two stark and simple issues:

(1) Did the, as yet unchallenged and unqualified, evidence of Professor Turk that suicide "will be an almost certain inevitability should he experience extradition" require the defendant under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, to refuse to surrender the Claimant to the government of the USA?

(2) Does the opinion of Professor Turk amount to a fundamental change in the circumstances previously considered by the courts and by the Defendant?

Both issues are arguable; and,if the answer to both is affirmative, it is arguable that the Defendant's decision not to refuse to surrender was unlawful.

[standard court claim filing instructions omitted]

It is always a bit surprising to see the Home Secretary described as the Defendant, and "The Queen" technically acting on behalf of Gary, but that is simply the arcane historical convention of the Royal Courts of Justice

As previously mentioned, the outcome of this Judicial Review is very likely to after the forthcoming General Election, so it is extremely unlikely (no matter who wins) that Alan Johnson will still be Home Secretary by then.

The "Convention" rights mentioned above are our Fundamental Human Rights listed under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which has nothing to do with the European Union, but is supposedly obeyed by all the countries in the European Union, plus a few others.

The Human Rights Act 1998 section 6 Acts of public authorities:

6 Acts of public authorities

(1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

[...]


The United Kingdom does not subscribe to all the of the ECHR articles, a notable exception being Article 13, the right to effective remedy for breaches of the Convention.

ECHR Article 7 retrospectivity, does not seem to have been applied in either Gary McKinnon's case or in other extradition cases to the USA, where the Extradition Act 2003 was applied retrospectively.

This Labour government has also ignored, prevaricated and delayed for months and years, in making the required legal or procedural changes, when they have been found to have been in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg e.g. over Terrorism Control Orders (house arrest without evidence, charge, trial or conviction) or the retention of innocent people's DNA samples and profiles (the Marper case, where they have continued as before, for over a year after the Court's decision).