Free Gary McKinnon

Gary McKinnon's mother Janis Sharp and other supporters were at No. 10 Downing Street this afternoon, to hand in the Poems written for Gary c.f.

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 ?

The Daily Telegraph reports that:

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.

Tonight, Conservive MP for Esher and Walton was granted a Debate on Extradition on the floor of the House of Commons , following the less important one he secured in Westminster Hall on 24th November.

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).

Those of us who have been concerned with the Gary McKinnon and other unfair extradition to the USA cases such as the Babar Ahmad or NatWest 3 cases etc. should read the recent "debate" in Parliament:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111124/halltext/111124h0001.htm#11112452000001

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.

• Dominic Raab (Conservative)
• David Burrowes (Conservative) - Gary McKinnon's constituency MP
• Zac Goldsmith (Conservative)
• Yasmin Qureshi (Labour)
• Dr Hywel Francis (Labour)
• Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat)
• Keith Vaz (Labour) - Chair of the Home Office Select Committee),
• Caroline Lucas (Green)
• Chris Bryant (Labour)
• Damian Green (Conservative) - The Minister for Immigration

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?

The Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition government are still dithering and have still not yet made good their pre-election promises about sorting out the appalling mess which the previous Labour government created with our Extradition laws and policies.

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 2011

HC 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.

The Rt. Hon. Scott Baker's review of Extradition has now been published, (a month or so after it was promised).

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.

Foreign Secretary William Hague has mentioned the Gary McKinnon case during a Question and Answer session on Twitter, focussed on the forthcoming international LondonCyber conference.

https://twitter.com/#!/WilliamJHague/status/121913762826555394

MT @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/121914025637453824

Yes 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/121914554123956224

Understand 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.

Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday saw saw this Question about Gary McKinnon:

Citation: HC Deb, 13 July 2011, c306

Engagements
Oral Answers to Questions -- Prime Minister
House of Commons debates, 13 July 2011, 11:30 am

David 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.

Human Rights Joint Committee - Fifteenth Report - The Human Rights Implications of UK Extradition Policy

US-UK Extradition Treaty 2003

[...]

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 ?

The Daily Mail reports:

No mercy for Gary McKinnon: As Obama prepares for UK visit, his law chief insists U.S. will not bend on extradition

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.