http://www.poeticjustice4gary.co.uk/
They also handed in a copy of the book Gang of One: How One of the NatWest Three Survived Extradition and Life in a Texas Prison by Gary Mulgrew, whose similar high profile extradition case was another betrayal of British justice.
This is now the Tenth year, that this supposedly "fast track" extradition to the USA legal case has been dragging on so unnecessarily - Gary could and should have been tried in a UK Court.
When will the Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition government politicians keep the promises of support they made before the General Election, to Gary and to his supporters ?
]]>Judges try to speed up Gary McKinnon extradition case
The High Court expressed concern today over the length of time it is taking the long-running case of computer hacker Gary McKinnon to come back to court.
10:19AM GMT 27 Jan 2012
Two judges attempted to speed matters up by listing it for a hearing in July.
They acted after hearing that the Home Secretary is ''considering afresh'' whether Asperger's sufferer McKinnon should be extradited to the US to face trial for hacking into top secret US military computers in 2002.
Edward Fitzgerald QC, appearing for McKinnon, told the judges it was hoped Theresa May would now block US government extradition moves so there would be no more need for court action.
The evidence of medical experts before her showed McKinnon, 45, was ''suffering from a serious mental disorder and there is a serious risk of suicide if extradited''.
Mr Fitzgerald said of the marathon case: ''We hope it will never come back to court.''
[...]
Arrested in June 2005, an order for extradition was made against him in July 2006 at the request of the US government under the 2003 Extradition Act.
The move has triggered three successive applications for judicial review which have made headlines over the years and called into question the fairness of extradition laws, in particular the UK-US extradition treaty, which critics have condemned as "one-sided" in favour of the Americans.
The latest legal challenge to the 2006 extradition order was launched early in 2010 but adjourned for a new home secretary to investigate the issues.
Today Lord Justice Richards, sitting with Mr Justice Cranston, said the case had been "dragging on for a very long time" but could not be allowed to drag on indefinitely.
Hugo Keith QC, appearing for the Home Secretary, said the long delays were caused by the change of government, the new Home Secretary's decision to look at the case afresh and difficulties in gathering new psychiatric evidence.
Mr Keith told the judges he was not inviting a time limit for a full hearing as fresh evidence was still being assembled to put before the minister.
It was not known how complex that would be, and she would no doubt want to seek legal advice before finally deciding whether or not extradition should still go ahead.
Mr Keith said: "She does acknowledge the very considerable lapse of time already passed in this case.
"She will, of course, immediately turn to considering her position when these representations have been received."
Mr Fitzgerald told the court that, on McKinnon's side, "we are very grateful to have her reconsider the whole matter in the light of further psychiatric evidence and further representations.
"We are content that the Secretary of State should give this matter her anxious scrutiny and would not wish to hurry her."
Lord Justice Richards said he was fixing a hearing date in July "to concentrate minds".
He said: "It would just drag on indefinitely, allowing the Secretary of State an indefinite period for further decision-making".
The judge laid down a timetable for the exchange between the parties of new evidence and experts' reports to achieve the July deadline.
He said the case, if a hearing is still necessary by then, should be heard by two judges, with a time estimate of two days.
ZDNet reports:
]]>Judge lights fire under McKinnon proceedings
By Tom Espiner, ZDNet UK, 27 January, 2012 14:23
[...]
The Home Office has appointed two medical experts to provide evidence about McKinnon's psychological state, and whether his medical condition puts him at risk of suicide should he be extradited, Lord Justice Richards and Mr Justice Cranston were told on Friday.
Professor Declan Murphy and Professor Thomas Fahy of Kings College, London were appointed by the Home Office in November to judge McKinnon's psychological state, McKinnon's solicitor Karen Todner told ZDNet UK.
Murphy has met McKinnon, but Fahy has not yet examined the self-confessed hacker, who was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome in 2008. The two experts have been considering medical evidence since November 2011, according to Todner.
Richards said the psychiatric experts must submit their report to McKinnon's legal team by 24 February. The defence team then has until 23 March to make representations to home secretary Theresa May, who must decide whether McKinnon's medical condition and psychological state put him at risk of suicide.
May can halt McKinnon's extradition under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention on Human Rights, Todner said. If the home secretary decides not to halt the extradition, the hearing in July will go ahead as a judicial review of the home secretary's decision.
Business >House of Commons, Session 2010-12, Order of Business Monday 5 December 2011
That this House calls upon the Government to reform the UK's extradition arrangements to strengthen the protection of British citizens by introducing as a matter of urgency a Bill to enact the safeguards recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its Fifteenth Report, HC 767, and by pursuing such amendments to the UK-US Extradition Treaty 2003 and the EU Council Framework Decision 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant as are necessary in order to give effect to such recommendations.
The Chamber of the House of Commons was poorly attended, and both the Gary McKinnon and Babar Ahmad cases were mentioned in detail by their constituency MPs and by the Conservative Immigration Minsiter Damian Green (who also replied for the Government in the Westmninster Hall debate).
There were some shocking examples of "rough justice" invoilving the European Arrest Warrant given by other Constituency MPs.
Even the appallingly authoritarian and incompetent former Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett spoke in the debate. He is personally resposible for rubber stamping the new US / UK extradition treaty through (he signed it on behalf of the UK, before the text of it was even shown to Parliament or the British public) and for the Extradition Act 2003 (Tony Blair's Labour Government had a big majority and the Official Opposition was pathetic). This was enacted in 2040 and applied retrospectively to Gary McKinnon case, who was arrested in 2002.
Blunkett recounted some of his efforts to get Gary McKinnon tried via video link in a court in the USA, but physically in the UK, something which would require a complete change of US legislation and which was obviously doomed to failure (there are no such arrangements for video link trial to British courts to foreign countries either).
At the end, the Debate was "voted on" by the House of Commons orally, by acclamation, with no audible voices of dissent: "The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it"
This means that there is no record of how individual MPs actually voted or abstained or were not present for the debate.
This vote does not bind the Government to actually do anything.
The transcript of this Debate are avialable online: UK Extradition Arrangements, UK Extradition Arrangements, Backbench Business, 6:48 pm 5th December 2011
Have the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government politicians delivered on their pre-election promises regarding reform of Extradition practices ? Clearly the answer is still not yet
Will there be any rapid resolution of the Gary McKinnon or Babar Ahmad or other Extradition cases mentioned today during the debate ? No - the current Government claims to be doing everything it can already (just like the previous Labour government pretended to).
]]>24 Nov 2011 : Column 147WH
Westminster Hall
Thursday 24 November 2011
[Andrew Rosindell in the Chair]
backbench business
Extradition[Relevant document: Fifteenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2010-12 HC 767]
This debate is secured by backbench MP's on a topic of their choice and a Minister has to reply.
However it is not held in the main chamber of the House of Commons, but rather in the ancient Westminster Hall and there is no opportunity for MPs to actually vote for or against the motion, therefore these debates are almost always ignored by the government.
In addition, this particular debate has been used as a sop to public opinion by the political party managers who control the business of the House of Commons.
Under their new "internet transparency" arrangements, the House of Commons is supposed to allow time for a proper debate in response to electronic petitions which manage to gain over 100,000 signatures.
One such debate did take place recently on 15th November where MPs from all sides rightly demanded that the forthcoming planned tax increases on petrol and diesel fuel should be scrapped. This petition got 110,000 signatures and a full debate and vote on the floor of the House of Commons.
A similar petition about the Babar Ahmad extradition to the USA case, got over 140,000 signatures but was not granted a full debate - they were fobbed off with this less important Westminster Hall private member's debate instigated by Dominic Raab MP
Several MPs mentioned the Gary McKinnon case specifically.
Unsurprisingly, none of the former Labour government ministers who pushed through the controversial Extradition Act 2003 bothered to defend their actions.
Only the former Labour Home Office minister Fiona Mactaggart spoke about the Babar Ahmad case pointing out that he has been in high security prison for over 7 years, equivalent to a 14 year jail sentence for a serious crime, even though he has not even been charged with any offence in the UK. She did not mention Gary McKinnon, nor her own complicity in both those cases.
Chris Bryant the shameless former Labour Foreign Office junior Minister, therefore directly concerned with extradition to foreign countries, did not apologise for his own complicity in the Extradition mess, but he did correctly pointed out:
The Government have a problem. The Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats made a series of commitments when they were in opposition to change the treaty to ensure that Gary McKinnon would not be
24 Nov 2011 : Column 187WH
sent to the United States of America. As I understand it, the Government were going to rely on the Baker review, but that review has provided exactly the opposite answer to what they expected.
The Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers currently in power, who were rightly critical of the Extradition Act 2003 and who now have the power to sort out the mess, have failed to do so and are still dithering after 18 months in office.
The only new facts to emerge from this Westminster Hall "debate" is the revelation of further incompetence or perhaps complicity, by the Crown Prosecution Service, made by Caroline Lucas, the Green MP fror Brighton Pavilion,
Babar's lawyers point out that other comparable prosecutions are proceeding in the UK. Nevertheless, in July 2004 and December 2006, the Crown Prosecution Service declared--as did the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, in September 2006--that there was "insufficient
24 Nov 2011 : Column 180WH
evidence" to charge Babar Ahmad with any criminal offence under UK law, and that he should be extradited to the US. Last night, in a shocking turn of events, Babar's lawyers received a letter from the CPS, which admitted for the first time that it was never given the evidence that was sent to the US, apart from "a few documents." The bulk of the evidence was shipped straight to the US by the police. Astoundingly, although we had previously been led to believe that the CPS had viewed all the evidence and judged it insufficient to bring the case to trial in the UK, we now have a confession that it had not even seen all the evidence, let alone investigated it properly. A proper decision has not been made on whether a prosecution can go ahead in the UK.
After talking to the lawyers involved, I understand that the CPS knew all along that it had not been given all the evidence. However, it let Babar Ahmad languish in a maximum security prison with the threat of extradition to the US, under the false belief that the CPS had seen all the evidence against him. If that is the case, it is appalling and raises serious questions about why evidence that should have been given to the CPS was not produced, and why Babar was not told about it. Who directed and authorised that circumvention of the CPS, apparently in deference to and at the behest of the US?
A vague hint from the Attorney General Dominic Grieve that the Government may not obey the recommendation of the controversial Scott Baker report in the case of Gary McKinnon and perhaps other extradition cases:
Extradition
Oral Answers to Questions -- Attorney-General
11:30 am 15th November 2011HC Deb, 15 November 2011, c691
Graeme Morrice (Livingston, Labour)
What consideration has the Attorney-General given to implementing a forum bar to give judges more discretion in deciding whether it is in the interests of justice for cases to be tried in the UK, such as the case involving Gary McKinnon, or where the offence was committed in the UK and it is difficult for the defence to bring witnesses and evidence to a foreign jurisdiction?
Dominic Grieve (Attorney General; Beaconsfield, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is touched on in Lord Justice Scott Baker's report, and will have to be taken into account in the Government response. He will be aware that Lord Justice Scott Baker's proposals are guidelines, rather than an implementation of the forum bar. That is something that the Government will have to consider.
N.B. in the same Oral Questions session, Dominic Grieve stated that he had not yet discussed the Baker report with the Home Secretary / Home Office.
]]>Before you rush to judgement, you should actually read the full text of the review, a mere 488 pages:
You can download a (,pdf) file from the Home Office
A REVIEW OF THE UNITED KINGDOM' EXTRADITION ARRANGEMENTS(Following Written Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of 8 September 2010) Presented to the Home Secretary on 30 September 2011
The Home Office website seems to be overloaded (they really have no clue about the internet) , so if you are having difficulty with that, we have a copy mirrored here:
There are references to some of the iniquitous high profile extraditions cases e.g. Gary McKinnon, Bermingham (the NatWest3 bankers), Ian Norris, Babar Ahmad. and the extraordinary case of Farid Hilali (which Justice Scott Baker has personal involvement with).
However each of these cases is only partially cited, in order to bolster the flawed recommendations of the report and there is no proper evaluation of each of these cases merits and demerits.
Very significantly, there is no mention of the word "internet" in this document, especially when dealing with the concept of "legal forum". i.e. under which legal jurisdiction an alleged cross-border crime should be tried.
Section 6 of the report dealing with "Forum" is just utterly wrong !
Why on earth are "prosecutors" supposedly able to determine the question of "legal form" better than anyone else ? The Crown Prosecution Service has a history of incompetence, especially with any case involving the internet or, in fact, anything technological or scientific at all c.f. the utterly fictitious and non existent "Red Mercury" terrorism case involving the undercover antics of the News of the World.newspaper.
The Scott Baker report claims, possibly correctly, that there is not much narrow legal difference between the judicial standard of proof of "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" test between the UK and and US judicial systems.
But that misses the point entirely.
What it utterly fails to address is that under the wretched Labour government's Extradition Act 2003, there is no longer any opportunity for the UK accused to have their lawyers cross examine the alleged evidence or allegations brought against them by the US authorities. resulted in the grossly exaggerated claims of nearly 1 million dollars financial damage (the embarrassment damage to the reputation of the US military was obviously huge, but not measurable in terms of financial damage) being laughed out of court. That would have probably made the alleged crimes not even serious enough to merit Extradition in the first place.
To claim that there is no difference or inequality between USA requests for Extradition from the UK and vice versa is astonishingly perverse. If a the UK authorities want to extradite someone from the USA, they have to provide evidence which is subjected to cross examination by the defendants' lawyers. The reverse is simply not true in UK Extradition proceedings to the USA.
All the appeal court judges etc. have never been allowed to pronounce upon the admissibility or sanity of these allegations during the Extradition Act 2003 box ticking procedures, which prevent any actual consideration of the substance of the allegations or any witnesses etc. from being cross examined.
It is irrelevant whether or not Appeal Court Judges etc have been briefed on the detailed substance of the case, there has never yet been an opportunity for Gary McKinnon's lawyers to cross examine any of the evidence or witnesses against him.
The document does list various sources of oral and written evidence given to the panel, but it manages to exclude any mention of our email of evidence to the panel
Unless the Conservative Home Secretary Theresa May wants to be condemned by history as indistinguishable from her authoritarian and inept Labour predecessors, she should ignore most of the recommendations of this peculiar report, except for removing herself from any Extradition matters whatsoever and leaving that to proper UK Courts, where the accused can actually cross examine the alleged prima facie evidence against them.
https://twitter.com/#!/WilliamJHague/status/121913762826555394MT @BrynGerard Does Britain employ the best talent to address IT security issues? What about Gary Mckinnon? #AskFs #LondonCyber
12:44 PM Oct 6th 2011
https://twitter.com/#!/WilliamJHague/status/121914025637453824Yes we do employ some of best IT talent @BrynGerard! But you can't expect me to say much more.... #askFS #LondonCyber
12:45 PM Oct 6th 2011
https://twitter.com/#!/WilliamJHague/status/121914554123956224Understand concern about Mr McKinnon - case currently before Home Secretary #askFS @BrynGerard
12:47 PM Oct 6th 2011
Thanks to @BrynGerard for asking this important question and for reminding some of the top UK Government politicians, civil servants and the mainstream media about the case.
]]>Citation: HC Deb, 13 July 2011, c306
Engagements
Oral Answers to Questions -- Prime Minister
House of Commons debates, 13 July 2011, 11:30 amDavid Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate, Conservative)
Can I raise with the Prime Minister a different case of hacking--the computer hacker Gary McKinnon? While I recognise that the Home Secretary has a legal process to follow, does the Prime Minister share the concern for my constituent's nine-year nightmare? He feels that his life is literally hanging by a thread that is waiting to be cut by extradition.
David Cameron (Prime Minister; Witney, Conservative)
I do recognise the seriousness of this case, and the Deputy Prime Minister and I actually raised it with President Obama when he visited. I think the point is that it is not so much about the alleged offence, which everyone knows is a very serious offence, and we can understand why the Americans feel so
strongly about it. The case is now in front of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has to consider reports about Gary McKinnon's health and well-being. It is right that she does that in a proper and effectively--I am sorry to use the word again today--quasi-judicial way.
The Conservative - Liberal Democrat Coalition Government politicians are still dithering.
They have still not yet fulfilled their pre-election promises regarding the Gary McKinnon extradition case.
[...]
192. The Government should increase the proof required for the extradition of British citizens to the US so as to require sufficient evidence to establish probable cause, as is required for the extradition of a US citizen to the UK. This will require renegotiation of the UK-US Extradition Treaty.
[...]
196. We recommend that the Government urgently renegotiate this article of the US-UK extradition treaty to exclude the possibility that extradition is requested and granted in cases such as that of Mr Bermingham and Mr Ahmed, where the UK police and prosecution authorities have already made a decision not to charge or prosecute an individual on the same evidence adduced by the US authorities to request extradition.
This would also apply to Gary McKinnon.
The previous Labour government managed to totally ignore any "human rights" recommendations made by this Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
Will the "we have still not made good our pre-election promises" Conservative / Liberal Democrat Coalition Government find excuses to ignore this report as well ?
]]>By James Slack
Last updated at 10:00 PM on 12th May 2011
President Obama's top law officer last night dealt a bitter blow to computer hacker Gary McKinnon by insisting that he must face trial in a U.S. court.Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General, vowed to 'take all of the necessary steps' to have Gary - who suffers from Asperger's syndrome - extradited and 'held accountable for the crimes that he committed'.
Gary, 45, and his thousands of supporters had been hoping for a breakthrough in his case when Mr Obama visits the UK later this month.
His mother Janis Sharp had written an open letter to the President pleading with him to end ten years of torment.
However, it appears the U.S. has made its decision before Mr Obama even sets foot on British soil.
[...]
There does not seem to be any practical difference between the attitude of the bureaucrats and politicians under President Barack Obama or under his predecessor George Bush, regarding their controversial attempt to extradite Gary McKinnon to the USA, rather than have him tried in the UK.
Presumably President Obama will be kept out of sight and out of earshot of any protestors, exactly as President Bush was, when he visited London.
They have published online a couple of Uncorrected Transcripts of Oral Evidence sessions, both of which mention the Gary McKinnon extradition case several times.
Tuesday 30 November 2010
Rt Hon David Blunkett MP
Jago Russell, Jodie Blackstock and Shami Chakrabarti
Janis Sharp
David Blunkett is the scandalous, multiply disgraced, former Labour Home Secretary, who forced through the wretched Extradition Act 2003. He is now pretending that the problems with it involving the USA, the European Arrest Warrant and anything to do with "cyber", which were all pointed out to him and his Labour government colleagues at the time, were "unforeseeable" and therefore this mess is somehow not his fault. Why does anyone ever believe a word that this disgraceful, authoritarian politician utters ?
Janis Sharp is Gary McKinnon's redoubtable mother, who has done so much to publicise his case before the media and politicians.
Tuesday 18 January 2011
Ms Gareth Peirce and Mr Ashfaq Ahmad
Mr Julian Knowles
Ms Gareth Peirce is a leading Human Rights lawyer, who has been involved in many high profile cases, where the judicial system has eventually ruled against the entrenched position of the Government. She represents, amongst others, the similar case of Babar Ahmad (whose father, a retired British Overseas Development Administration civil servant was also present)
Julian Knowles is an acknowledged Extradition expert barrister, both for the prosecution and the defence.
Both of them make compelling arguments for a repeal or amendment of the Extradition Act 2003, to re-introduce the safety nets and prima facie evidential tests and the supremacy of UK legal forum, which the Extradition Act 2003 deliberately destroyed.
]]>The Sunday Express reports:
David Gilmour pays for Gary McKinnon's psychiatric treatment
Sunday February 13,2011
By James MurrayPINK FLOYD star David Gilmour is paying for psychiatric treatment for troubled Gary McKinnon after he was suddenly refused NHS funding while he fights extradition to the US on charges of hacking into military computers.
The renowned guitarist, who supports mental health campaigns, decided to step in after the Asperger's Syndrome sufferer became a victim of budget cutbacks at a London NHS Trust.
Glasgow-born McKinnon, 45, faces up to 60 years in a US jail for breaking into Nasa and Pentagon computers in 2001 and 2002 while looking for evidence of UFOs. Until last month he had been receiving treatment from Asperger's expert Professor Jeremy Turk, who believes he will become a suicide risk if forced to go to America to face trial.
The intervention comes at a crucial time for Mr McKinnon. His mother, Janis Sharp, is preparing to disclose new evidence of mental illness in the family that could be used to stop the case against her son. Speaking to the Sunday Express, Ms Sharp praised the Pink Floyd star for his help, and insisted their fight against extradition would continue.
She said: "When I heard about the funding for Gary's psychiatrist being refused I was shell-shocked.
"The world economy is worse than people realise and people in this country are going to be hit by the cuts that haven't even fully kicked in yet. What will happen to other people with psychiatric problems if their funding is cut off?
"I'm so grateful to David Gilmour for helping Gary at such a crucial time."
[...]
Remember that there was no public consultation whatsoever, and no informed debate and careful scrutiny in Parliament either, when the notorious and twice disgraced David Blunkett forced through the Extradition Act 2003 into law, which he and his apparatchiki then applied retrospectively to Gary McKinnon and to other cases. such as the Nat West 3 Bankers and Babar Ahmed. etc.
Your views on extradition wanted
Monday, 08 Nov 2010
Members of the public can have their say on a review into the UK's extradition arrangements from today.
Extradition is the process which allows countries to make formal requests to each other for the return of suspects to stand trial for a crime in the country it was committed.
An independent review of the UK's extradition laws was announced by the Home Secretary in September. As part of that review, the public has until 31 December to contribute views.
Efficient and fairThe review panel is being led by the Rt Hon Sir Scott Baker and is focusing on five areas to ensure that the UK's arrangements work both efficiently and in the interests of justice. These areas are:
* the Home Secretary's powers to stop extradition
* the operation of the European Arrest Warrant, which deals with extradition requests between European countries
* where a crime is mainly committed in the UK, whether the person should be tried here
* whether the US-UK Extradition Treaty is unbalanced
* whether requesting countries should be required to provide sufficient evidence to prove an allegationYour views
The panel would like to hear from anyone who may wish to contribute to the review. You can put forward your views by email to: extradition.review@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk.
The closing date for contributions is 31 December 2010.
The panel is supposed to report by "summer 2011" and comprises of:
Sir Scott Baker will lead review of extradition
[...]
The Rt Hon Sir Scott Baker was called to the Bar in 1961, and practised in a range of legal areas, including family finance cases and professional negligence. He became a Recorder in 1976 and was appointed as a High Court judge in 1988. In 1999, he presided over the trial of Great Western Trains following the Southall rail crash in 1997. He became a Lord Justice of Appeal in 2002 and went on to preside over the inquest into the death of Princess Diana. He also sat regularly in the Divisional Court hearing appeals and judicial reviews in extradition cases. He also tried Jonathan Aitken in 1999.
David Perry QC is a leading barrister in the field of extradition who is regularly used by the Crown Prosecution Service. From 2001 to 2006 Mr Perry was Senior Treasury Counsel prosecuting in a range of high profile cases.
Anand Doobay is a partner at Peters & Peters and has a wealth of experience in the field of judicial co-operation. He has focused in recent years on representing the subjects of extradition requests to the UK with a particular expertise in Russian cases. He is a co-author of 'Jones and Doobay on Extradition' published by Sweet and Maxwell. Mr Doobay is a trustee of Fair Trials International.
Many of Gary McKinnon's supporters have sent in written arguments which touch on one or more of the terms of reference of this review, but they were all ignored and treated with contempt by the Labour politicians and their Whitehall appartchiki.
If you can spare a few minutes to email The Rt Hon Sir Scott Baker via extradition.review@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk. then please do so.
There is nothing in this review which limits input solely to United Kingdom citizens, the panel would be unprofessional if they ignored the views of foreigners who are affected by the current British Extradition law mess.
UPDATE 4th January 2011:
it seems that the deadline for sending in your views has now been extended until the end of this month - Monday 31st January 2011
See:
https://twitter.com/#!/ukhomeoffice/status/22328608139771904
and the updated
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/news/views-extradition
]]>Gary McKinnon was, back over 8 years ago, no doubt trying to get through to this network, which should have "air gaps" between it and the NIPREnet, the "non-classified" intranet, which at the time, had insufficient firewalls to protect it from the public internet.
The Wikileaks.org published alleged diplomatic cable is here.
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/10/09LONDON2303.html
The only bit about Gary McKinnon is this:
S E C R E T LONDON 002303
NOFORN
SIPDISEO 12958 DECL: 10/06/2019
TAGS PREL, PGOV, ECON, UK, KNNP, MOPS, IR, PK, AF
SUBJECT: SCENESETTER FOR THE SECRETARY'S OCTOBER 10-11
VISIT TO LONDONClassified By: Ambassador Louis B. Susman for reasons 1.4 (b/d).
[...]
The UK on Key Issues
--------------------ΒΆ2. (S//NF) The Secretary's meetings with PM Gordon Brown and Foreign Secretary David Miliband likely will focus on the following key issues:
-- Afghanistan
[...]
-- Iran
[...]
-- Pakistan
[...]
-- Northern Ireland
[...]
-- Nuclear Non-proliferation
[...]
- Defense Trade Treaty
[...]
-- Arms Trade Treaty
[...]
-- Gary McKinnon Extradition Case - The PM will likely raise with the Secretary (as he has with the Ambassador) the extradition case of Gary McKinnon. McKinnon is a 43-year old computer hacker with Asperger's Syndrome who is wanted for prosecution in the U.S.; he is accused of hacking into U.S. government systems in 2001 and 2002. McKinnon has gained enormous popular sympathy in his appeal against extradition; the UK's final decision is pending. The case has also caused public criticism of the U.S.-UK extradition treaty. In August, PM Brown, in a one-on-one meeting with the Ambassador, proposed a deal: that McKinnon plead guilty, make a statement of contrition, but serve any sentence of incarceration in the UK. Brown cited deep public concern that McKinnon, with his medical condition, would commit suicide or suffer injury in imprisoned in a U.S. facility. The Ambassador has raised this proposal with AG Holder and would be happy to brief the Secretary in more detail.
[...]
The (S/NF) designation of that part of the Diplomatic Cable from the US Embassy means "Secret / Not for Foreigners"
There is absolutely nothing in that paragraph which deserves a "Secret" classification, based as it is on public concerns.
HC Deb, 8 September 2010, c18WS
Extradition Review
Home Department
Written answers and statements, 8 September 2010
Theresa May (Home Secretary; Maidenhead, Conservative)
I am today announcing to Parliament the Government's plans to review the UK's extradition arrangements.
The coalition's programme for Government document published on 20 May, stated that
"We will review the operation of the Extradition Act-and the US/UK extradition treaty-to make sure it is even-handed".This announcement sets out how we propose to do this.
There are a number of areas of the UK's extradition arrangements which have attracted significant controversy in recent years. The Government understand that these are long-standing concerns and the review will therefore focus on five issues to ensure that the UK's extradition arrangements work both efficiently and in the interests of justice. These issues are:
breadth of Secretary of State discretion in an extradition case;
As a "fast track" extradition process for rapid extradition of terrorist suspects to the USA, the alleged lack of involvement in the process by the Home Secretary under the Extradition Act 2003 has been an utter failure, like so much else of David Blunkett's and the other disgraced Labour Home Secretaries policies.
the operation of the European arrest warrant, including the way in which those of its safeguards which are optional have been transposed into UK law;
What safeguards exactly ? The only thing that prevents abuse Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 is the fact that UK authorities can extradite people from other countries in the European Union on the same "no prima facie evidence" basis.
This does not apply to extraditions to the USA from the UK and no other European Union country (apart from Ireland, with some "legal forum" safeguards) allows such extraditions to the USA without prima facie evidence.
All the European Union countries' decisions on the European Arrest Warrant are subject to appeal to the same (slow) European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
whether the forum bar to extradition should be commenced;
Yes, obviously - why has this not already been done immediately ?
Even the Labour Home Secretaries weaseled about this, granting themselves the power to do so, but failing to Commence the amended legislation i.e. to bring it into force..
whether the US-UK extradition treaty is unbalanced;
Yes, very obviously so
Just read the Foreign & Commonwealth Office official online and printed copies of the Treaty - it even uses American English words and spellings e.g "offenses" and "authorize" !
Change this treaty as soon as possible, but change the UK domestic law first.
whether requesting states should be required to provide prima facie evidence.The review will be conducted by a small panel of experts who we are now seeking to appoint. We expect the review to report by the end of the summer 2011.
"We expect the review to report by the end of the summer 2011."
Does this mean at least another year on tenterhooks for Gary McKinnon and his family, friends and supporters?
The Home Secretary needs to clearly state that Gary McKinnon will not be extradited to the USA until at least this Review has been finished and acted upon by the Government.
It is not necessary to re-negotiate the Treaty before amending the notorious Extradition Act 2003, which was passed into UK law before the Treaty was even ratified by both sides and which was applied retrospectively to Gary McKinnon and the Nat West Three bankers and Ian Norris Morgan Crucible cases i.e. the previous 1972 treaty and the previous Extradition Act 1986 were in force at the time of their alleged offences.
]]>