Gary is now offering a personalised, low entry cost Search Engine Optimisation service to businesses and organisations through SmallSEO.co.uk
Hi, my name is Gary McKinnon, I have over 20 years experience in IT, with roles in programming, network implementation and support, business and domestic internet support, website coding and technologies and search engine optimisation. My aim is to provide high-quality SEO to small businesses and individuals. All of my clients have so far reached the first page of Google search results for their primary keywords, you can check this and even contact some of my clients via my portfolio page by clicking here.Most of my clients have small websites which means their total cost for my SEO service is low. I charge £40 per hour, with most clients only needing five or six hours of work on my part, and taking around two or three months to get to page one for their products or services for a total cost of £240.
The increase in traffic to your website and sales from that traffic is a great return on a small investment. I guarantee that I stick to the guidelines set by the major search engines. I don't use techniques that result in your website falling out of favour, and this ensures your long-term, high-quality ranking on Google, Bing and Yahoo. Please click here to see what you get with my UK SEO company package.
Follow Gary's SEO account on Twitter: @Gary_SmallSEO
Saving Gary McKinnon: A Mother's Story by Janis Sharp, published by Biteback Publishing
illustrated with photos of Gary and Janis,:
See previous blog post for details of the book
"Saving Gary McKinnon: A Mother's Story" by Janis Sharp, book publishing date 17th September 2013
We are looking forward to the publication of the book Saving Gary McKinnon: A Mother's Story by the remarkable Janis Sharp, available via Amazon.co.uk from 17th September 2013 rrp £18.99
Title: Saving Gary McKinnon: A Mother's Story
Author: Janis Sharp
Hardcover: 352 pages
Publisher: Biteback Publishing (17 Sep 2013)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 184954574X
ISBN-13: 978-1849545747
page 71
Strengthening public confidence in, and the operational effectiveness of, our extradition arrangements by amending the Extradition Act 2003, including by implementing recommendations of Sir Scott Baker's review;
This is not acceptable!
See our (and others) criticism of the Scott Baker review:
]]>In theory this gives Judges the discretion to apply common sense and to determine if it would be in the interests of justice to hear a dual jurisdiction case in the UK or in a foreign court, something which the Extradition Act 2003 prevents them from doing.
It is hard to say whether or not this would have made any difference, if this had been in place in 2002 when Gary McKinnon was arrested or subsequently in 2003 when the ex post facto Extradition Act 2003 was applied to his case retrospectively, there is still too much scope for secret backroom deals between foreign prosecutors and the technologically inept and under resourced Crown Prosecution Service.
N.B. Although section 50 which simply calls the above Schedule 20, is on the Statute Book, it is not yet in force until it is Commenced by Order.
The previous Forum Bar amended legislation section 19B and section 83A was also enacted (in 2006), but never brought into force, by the previous or current Governments.
]]>An Extradition Forum Bar should have allowed the trial of Gary McKinnon, the NatWest 3, Babar Ahmad, Christoper Tappin, Richard O'Dwyer etc. here in the United Kingdom rather than in the USA , but until the details are published, it is too early to welcome this news very much.
There is already Forum Bar legislation in the Extradition Act 2003 (section 19B and section 83A) on the Statute Book, introduced by the House of Lords in 2006, which has deliberately never been brought into force by the previous Labour or current Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition governments, who have never bothered to explain why not..
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130114/debtext/130114-0002.htm#13011420000001]]>Mrs May: I thank my hon. Friend.
Finally, let me give the House notice of another set of amendments that we will table in Committee. Members will recall that on 16 October, when I made a statement on our extradition arrangements, I indicated that I would present legislation as soon as parliamentary time allowed to make two key changes to the Extradition Act 2003. The first would introduce a new forum bar to extradition, and the second would transfer to the High
14 Jan 2013 : Column 643
Court the Home Secretary's responsibilities for considering representations on human rights grounds. I have decided that we should seize the opportunity provided by the Bill so that we can give effect to the changes as soon as possible.
http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2012/12/gary-mckinnon.html
]]>14/12/2012
Joint CPS/MPS statement on the case of Gary McKinnon
Statement by Keir Starmer QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, and Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service on the case of Gary McKinnon
Between 1 February 2001 and 19 March 2002, Gary McKinnon allegedly gained unauthorised access to 97 United States (US) Government computers. An investigation was launched in the US and a request for assistance was made to the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit in England and Wales. Following discussions between the US Department of Justice, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in the autumn of 2002, a decision was taken that the appropriate place for Mr McKinnon to be tried was the United States.
The reasons for that decision were:
The harm occurred in the US - the activity was directed against the military infrastructure of the US;
An investigation had already been launched in the US;
There were a large number of witnesses, most of whom were located in the US;
All of the physical evidence (with the exception of Mr McKinnon's computer) was located in the US;
The US prosecutors were able to bring a case that reflected the full extent of Mr McKinnon's alleged criminality; and
The bulk of the unused material was located in the US. Given the nature of the offence, this inevitably included highly sensitive information and the US courts were best placed to deal with any issues arising in relation to this material.As a result, the US sought Mr McKinnon's extradition from England and Wales for trial in the US.
The decision that the appropriate place for Mr McKinnon to be tried was the US was affirmed in 2009 and subsequently challenged in the High Court. That challenge failed. As Lord Justice Stanley Burnton said in his judgment: "... [it is] the decision of the DPP, which I consider to be lawful and unchallengeable, not to prosecute him here ... the USA is the appropriate forum for his prosecution."
On 16 October 2012, the Home Secretary decided not to extradite Mr McKinnon to the US on the basis of his health. She also announced that it was now for the DPP to decide whether Mr McKinnon had a case to answer in a UK court. At that stage there was no live criminal investigation in England and Wales, nor had there been for many years.
The DPP and the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police therefore agreed to convene a joint police/CPS panel to consider whether a new criminal investigation should be commenced.
None of the reasons for the original decision in 2002 that the appropriate place for Mr McKinnon to be tried was the United States have altered. So far as the evidence is concerned, the position in 2012 is the same as it was in 2002. Most of the witnesses are in the US, as is nearly all the physical evidence and the bulk of the unused material, some of which is sensitive. Accordingly, in November this year, the CPS and the police met senior officials from the US Department of Justice to discuss the possibility of bringing the US witnesses to England and Wales for trial and of transferring all the US material to this jurisdiction to be considered.
The potential difficulties in bringing a case in England and Wales now should not be underestimated, not least the passage of time, the logistics of transferring sensitive evidence prepared for a court in the US to London for trial, the participation of US government witnesses in the trial and the need fully to comply with the duties of disclosure imposed on the CPS. The prospects of a conviction against Mr McKinnon which reflects the full extent of his alleged criminality are not high.
After consulting with the Metropolitan Police Service and the CPS and having carefully considered matters, on 4 December this year, US authorities indicated to us that they would be willing to co-operate with a prosecution in England and Wales if that would serve the interest of justice. However, they do not consider that making all the US witnesses available for trial in London and transferring all of the US material to this jurisdiction would be in the interests of justice given our representations and the reasons for the decision that the US was the appropriate forum as set out above. That is a decision the US authorities are fully entitled to reach and we respect their decision.
Against this background, the joint CPS/police panel recommended to the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police that he should not commence a new criminal investigation into Mr McKinnon. The Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has accepted that advice.
Posted on 14/12/2012 at 14:52
We wish Gary and his family all the best.
Thank you to everyone who has supported this campaign over the years, by lobbying politicians and by airing the issues of cybersecurity, extradition law and the treatment of autistic people, with the mainstream media and online.
The Daily Mail newspaper has been (to many supposedly "liberal" minded people's astonishment) a staunch supporter of the campaign to stop Gary McKinnon being extradited to the USA.
Technically, the Director of Public Prosecutions, could continue to flounder in the mire of the Crown Prosecution Service's embarrassment, by reversing his previous arguments that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute Gary in the UK - the root cause of this whole debacle. It would be extraordinary if that were to happen now.
Theresa May has also vaguely promised some "new" forum bar changes to the evil Extradition Act 2003.
As with all politicians' promises, which we have learnt to be extremely cynical of over the course of this campaign, we need to see the full detail of exactly what is proposed. Will this really be something new, or will it be the Commencement of the already existing (but deliberately left dormant for over 6 years in defiance of the the will of Parliament) Extradition Act 2003 section 19B (European Arrest Warrant etc. category 1 countries) and section 87B (which applies to category 2 countries like the USA) ?
Until this mess over forum bar and Extradition is properly reformed, then the Kafkaesque political and judicial bureaucracy will betray other British victims of injustice, such as the student Richard O'Dwyer, who is facing extradition to the USA, for alleged internet activities which are not illegal in the United Kingdom.
Will anyone in Whitehall and Westminster be held accountable over the injust imprisonment without trial and extradition to the USA of, for example Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan ?
]]>There have been stories in the weekend newspapers regarding Yet Another Medical Report which says that Gary is not mentally fit to be extradited, but these have been ignored by the Home Office before.
The Home Office and the increasingly untrustworthy UK judicial system has succeeded in (temporarily) relieving itself its incompetent embarrassment of the Babar Ahmad extradition case, by deliberately mixing it in their political media spin up with that of the entirely separate case of the notorious Abu "The Hook" Hamza.
We fervently hope that tomorrow will bring this ordeal to an an end, for Gary McKinnon, for his family and supporters and for the rest of the people in the United Kingdom who risk being treated in the same appallingly Kafkaesque way, by the uncaring, unpatriotic, bureaucratic system which seem to have infected Whitehall.
Will Theresa May show that she can apply the British sense of fair play, common sense and mercy for Gary McKinnon, or will she betray all the pre-election promises made by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats ?
We would like to thank all the people who have taken the trouble to send Gary messages of support and those who have lobbied their elected politicians on his behalf.
Gary McKinnon extradition case: Lib Dem report urges treaty change
As Theresa May prepares to decide on Gary McKinnon case, review ordered by Nick Clegg says extradition terms favour US
Daniel Boffey
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 15 September 2012 20.42 BST
Theresa May, the home secretary, is under pressure to block the extradition of Gary McKinnon, who is wanted in the US over computer hacking charges, after a review of the treaty between the UK and US that was ordered by the deputy prime minister had urged that it be scrapped.The review, commissioned by Nick Clegg and undertaken by the former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell, insists that the current extradition treaty overly favours America.
The finding directly contradicts the Scott Baker report ordered by May last year, which concluded that the Extradition Act was not biased, even though nine times as many Britons have been extradited as Americans.
[...]
Clegg was a staunch supporter of McKinnon while in opposition, although he has since been criticised by the 46-year-old's mother for failing to help her once he was in government.Campbell's review, however, makes it clear that the extradition treaty enabling McKinnon's removal should be reformed by the government in the interests of public confidence. At the moment, "probable cause" has to be shown before a UK request for extradition of an American citizen will be granted. The reciprocal test for Britons is "reasonable suspicion".
The Scott Baker review concluded that there was no practical difference, but, in an online article for the Observer, Campbell, who is a QC, says: "With that conclusion I respectfully disagree. To put the matter as simply as I can, one may have a 'suspicion' that someone has committed a crime, but that is a different and lower standard than being satisfied that it is 'probable' that a crime was committed by that person.
"The proper course should be to raise the British standard to the American one, so that UK citizens do not suffer a disadvantage compared to their US equivalents."
[...]
May must make her decision on the McKinnon case by 16 October. In July, his mother pleaded outside court for the home secretary to "show a little bit of compassion" and rule sooner, but the appeal was rejected.
If May allows the extradition to go ahead, McKinnon's lawyers are expected to apply for a judicial review to challenge that decision.
[...]
Campbell has presented Clegg with his review and it is likely to be discussed publicly at Liberal Democrat conference next week. May is due to set out the government's thinking on the extradition treaty by the end of the year.
This review by Sir Menzies Cambell might be influential but is not binding on either the Liberal Deomcrats or the Conservative partners in the Coalition government.
The silence of the Labour party on this matter is also noteworthy and should also be probed - would they support such reform to the UK-US extration treaty and the repeal or reform of their notorious Extradition Act 2003, which has caused such injustice to so many people, regarding extradition without prima facie evidence to both the USA and to the European Union ?
The BBC reports:
Terror suspect Babar Ahmad faces possible private trial
By Dominic Casciani Home affairs correspondent
[...]
A British businessman has told the BBC he wants to bring a private prosecution against two UK terrorism suspects.
Karl Watkin said he wanted to prosecute Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan, rather than them face extradition to the US.
Mr Ahmad has been detained without trial for a record eight years. The US accuse him and Mr Ahsan of running a major jihadist website.
The men are understood to have confirmed involvement in the UK website - but have not admitted offences.
Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan are accused of involvement in Azzam.com, a website and publishing business which between 1996 and 2002 was at the heart of the radicalisation of English-speaking Muslims.
Although the website was based and operated from London, it was technically hosted in the US.
Neither of the suspects has been charged with an offence in the UK relating to Azzam, despite the fact that the investigation by US authorities includes evidence seized by the Metropolitan Police. The CPS has refused to prosecute Mr Ahmad or Mr Ahsan and has rejected calls by the men's lawyer to review that decision.
[...]
The lawyers have also written to the Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer QC, asking his permission for a private prosecution under terrorism laws.
Anyone can bring a private prosecution if they can prove that it is in the public interest to do so. The DPP has the power to intervene to take on the case or to stop it.
If the DPP or a judge were to halt the proposed proceedings, the decision could face legal challenge, potentially halting the extradition.
[...]
Since the Crown Prosecution Servvice determined that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute under UK law, it would be astonishing if they were to change their minds now.
It is very likely that the Director of Public Prosecutions will refuse permission for a Private Prosecution. so the Kafakaesque bureacratic legal nightmare for Babar Ahmad and for Gary McKinnon will grind on until the Coalition Government politicians actually stop dithering and fulfil their pre-election promises to repeal or drastically reform Labour's appalling Extradition Act 2003.
If the DPP Keir Starmer did allow a Private Prosecution in a case regarding a UK controlled website, then that could open up another hugely controversy, as it will allow rich and / or evil people to censor any website they object to through this mechanism. Even if they have no hope of winning the case, the threat of crippling legal costs will have a chilling effect on free speech on the operators of such websites, much as the still as yet unreformed Libel laws do now. (c.f. the Defamation Bill currently going through Parliament)
Gary McKinnon's agony due to drag on as extradition decision won't be made until the autumn
By Michael Seamark
PUBLISHED: 01:39, 25 July 2012 | UPDATED: 08:43, 25 July 2012
[...]
Lawyers representing Theresa May told the High Court she would decide 'on or around October 16' whether Mr McKinnon, 46, would be sent to the US to stand trial.
Hugo Keith QC cited the Home Secretary's 'all-consuming' involvement in the Olympic Games as one reason for the delay.
Medical experts say Mr McKinnon, who has Asperger's syndrome, may kill himself if he is sent abroad.
His mother Janis Sharp said yesterday: 'The evidence is there that Gary is unfit for trial and a considerable suicide risk.
'We need this decision. This delay is wrong - morally wrong.'
[...]
Hugo Keith QC, representing Mrs May, told the High Court she needed time to consider three new medical reports submitted by lawyers representing Mr McKinnon and wanted to announce her decision ' on or around October 16' once Parliament is sitting.
He also cited the Home Secretary's ' increasing and now all-consuming involvement in the Olympic Games - the biggest peacetime operation since the Second World War.'
But Mrs Sharp said: ' If Theresa May has got an ounce of compassion she would make her decision now before the Olympics because she has any number of medical reports - these delays are destroying my son's life.
' There is already enough evidence from two Home Office-approved experts - one appointed by the Home Secretary - and there is another four in all.
'She should show a little bit of compassion. Gary cannot cope any more.
The Olympics is an opportunity for a country to show its heart and courage to the World and giving a vulnerable man like Gary his freedom from ten years of mental torture would have shown the best side of who we are as a nation.'
Are we seriously meant to believe that every working hour of Theresa May's day is taken up by mismangement of the Olympics security ?
If she really is so obsessed and cannot delegate to trusted subordinates, she should resign as Home Secretary.
Remember that this case has already been mishandled by no fewer than 5 previous (Labour) Home Secretaries: David Blunkett, Charles Clarke, John Reid, Jacqui Smith & Alan Johnson
]]>Royal Courts of Justice Cause List
COURT 3
Before SIR JOHN THOMAS PQBD and MR JUSTICE MITTING
Thursday 5 July, 2012
At half past 10APPLICATION(s)
CO/15072/2009 The Queen on the application of Mckinnon v Secretary Of State For Home Department
FOR HEARING
CO/3940/2011 Naseer v Government Of The United States Of America
It seems unlikely that any decision regarding the Judicial Review granted back in January 2012 will actually be made public tomorrow, but anything could happen in this extraordinary, 10 year long legal case.
When will the pe-election promises by the hapless Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition government politicians be carried out ?
.
The latest demonstration will be:
Time: this afternoon Saturday 23rd June 2012 between 1pm and 3pm
Location: outside of Downing Street in London,
Nearest Tube: Westminster
Media contacts: Janis Sharp via Twitter@JanisSharp
The sun is shining in London. We need your voices outside number 10 Downing St. 1-3pm today/Sat. to stand up for #civilLiberties #FreeGary
Some tips and advice about demonstrations in central London:
]]> SOCPA ss 132 - 138 have now been repealedUnlike previous demonstrations at the Home Office etc., the notorious Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 sections 132 to 138, which set up a Designated Area around Parliament Square which encompassed Whitehall and the Downing Street and the Home Office etc. has now been repealed as of the end of March 2012.
Do not let any ill-trained or deliberately malevolent Police Constables or Police Community Support Officers try to fool you that these powers are still in force.
See the Parliament Protest blog for details.
Photography
Amateur and even professional press photographers are all too frequently illegally harassed by jobsworth public officials and security guards, partly as a result of the Home Office's "climate of fear" anti-terrorism propaganda.
There are no laws which prevent you taking photos at the demonstration (ideally, if it is to have any effect, the mainstream media should be present), and the US Embassy is not anything special as a building, except that it is the sovereign territory of our major ally.
There is nothing special about Whitehall and Downing Street with regard to photography in public places.
No Police Community Support Officer or private security guard or any Police Constable in Uniform has any power to seize your camera or mobile camera phone without actually arresting you for an offence with reasonable suspicion.
Even if you are arrested, the Police Constables (not PCSOs or private security guards who have no powers of arrest) have no power to delete digital photos etc. even if they have seized your camera or mobile phone, since that would be tampering with evidence in contravention of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Conversely, there are no laws to prevent the Police or security guards from taking photos or video of you, either.
Use your common sense if photographing an armed Police officer pointing a gun at you.
Terrorism Stop and Search harassment
The Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition government have slightly watered down the previous labour government's repressive Terrorism Act 2000 Section 44 stop and search without reasonable cause powers. These are still on the statute book awaiting repeal by the Protection of Freedoms Bill, but the Metropolitan Police are supposed to have stopped using Section 44.
You can still be stopped and searched under Section 43, but that should only be used against real terrorism suspects. This legal power can only be exercised by a real Police Constable in Uniform (not in plain clothes, not undercover, not a Police Community Support Officer, not a private security guard, not a Council Warden or Heritage Warden etc.)
You do not have to give your name and address to the Police, unless they do try to actually arrest you on the street, for one or more of a vast range of other potential offences, including "public nuisance" etc.
What to bring on a demonstration
What NOT to bring to a demonstration
The Home Affairs Committee published Yet Another Report on Extradition on Friday 31st March 2012t:
This says nothing new about the United Kingdom's unique extradition arrangement with the United States of America,
20. Mr Bermingham told us that the UK is one of only three countries in which the US does not have to produce prima facie evidence for extradition. The others are France, which will not extradite its own citizens to the USA, and the Republic of Ireland, which has a higher forum test than the UK.[32] Witnesses from Fair Trials International, JUSTICE and Liberty all argued that there should be a prima facie evidence test for extradition from the UK.[33]
This has all been said before, by the current Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers, when they were in Opposition to the previous Labour government.
7. The Committee is proposing significant changes to the extradition arrangements between the US and the UK not because we are critical of the American justice system but because we recognise the importance of robust extradition arrangements between our two countries. Such extradition arrangements are now threatened by loss of public confidence in the UK and there is a risk that, with time, that lack of confidence will translate into wider disaffection. We believe that the Government should act now to restore public faith in the Treaty by rebalancing the requirements for the provision of information, urgently opening negotiations about the re-introduction of an evidence test, and introducing a forum bar. The Committee believes that these changes will allow for a fair and balanced system of justice between the US and the UK as regards extradition. (Paragraph 36)
This Extradition scandal has already caused a "loss of public confidence" which is continuing to generate "wider disaffection" both with the UK political "elite" and with the United States government and people.
Any changes to the Treaty and to the notorious Extradition Act 2003 will come too late for those who are currently suffering the Kafkaesque bureacratic and political nightmare right now e.g.. Gary McKinnon, Babar Ahmad, Richard O'Dwyer etc.
However, the Government could, as a first step, immediatly Commence by Order the existing forum bar legislation which has already been passed by Parliament, but which both they and the previous Labour government have deliberately ignored for the last 6 years:
27. There is a provision in the Police and Justice Act 2006 which amends the Extradition Act 2003 to introduce a forum bar. Section 83A provides that:
(1) A person's extradition to a category 2 territory ("the requesting territory") is barred by reason of forum if (and only if) it appears that--
(a) a significant part of the conduct alleged to constitute the extradition offence is conduct in the United Kingdom, and
(b) in view of that and all the other circumstances, it would not be in the interests of justice for the person to be tried for the offence in the requesting territory.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) the judge must take into account whether the relevant prosecution authorities in the United Kingdom have decided not to take proceedings against the person in respect of the conduct in question.[38]
This provision was inserted by an Opposition amendment in the House of Lords and it has not yet been commenced. The Secretary of State is not required to bring the provision into force unless a resolution to that effect is passed by both Houses of Parliament, though she may do so without such resolutions.[39]
One suspicious and unwelcome feature in this Report is the prominence which they give to the Annex: Statement to the Committee by United States Ambassador Louis B. Sussman
Why is this Statement (which misleads through ommission) displayed, as part of the Conclusions, so much more promininttly than any of the other Written or Oral Evidence given to the Committee, including that from the British Prime Minister and the Home Secretary ?