Janis Sharp, the mother of Gary McKinnon has announced her candidacy in the forthcoming General Election.

She will be standing against the Jack Straw, the former Labour Home Secretary and current Minister of (in)Justice in the constituency of Blackburn, in Lancashire.

See Janis's Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/JanisSharp

Interestingly, Jack Straw is the only former Labour Home Secretary who has not had to deal with the Gary McKinnon extradition case, as he had been edged sideways by David Blunkett, by the time Gary was arrested in April 2002.

He was Foreign Secretary at the time of the UK Governments secret extradition treaty negotiations with the US Government which resulted in the Extradition Act 2003, which Gary McKinnon and other extradition cases to the USA have fallen foul of.

He is personally at least as much to blame for the ongoing legal travesty and betrayal of British sovereignty as any of his Labour Government colleagues.

Other high profile political dissidents and human rights campaigners such as the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, have stood against Jack Straw in previous General Elections.

Perhaps Craig can advise Janis on the sort of Labour party political trickery and postal ballot corruption which has tainted the elections in Blackburn in the past. e.g. Blackburn Council Jack Straw Electoral Corruption Starts Again

The fact that the Gary McKinnon extradition case has exceeded the lifetime of this current Parliament, is a scandal which belies any promises of swift or fair justice, made by this Labour government.


Janis Sharp has a General Election campaign website at: http://www.JanisSharp.com

The UK Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Ian Norris, the former head of Morgan Crucible plc, has been published and is available online:

Norris (Appellant) v Government of United States of America (Respondent) (.pdf)

The Times reports: Industry chief loses six-year US extradition battle

This case yet again shows how the Extradition Act 2003 makes it, in practice, impossible for Judges to apply the Human Rights Act / European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 (""Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.") to appeals in Extradition cases.

However they seem happy enough to do so, in cases of Expulsions or Deportations under Immigration laws or for convicted foreign nationals.

This is bad news for the Gary McKinnon case, which is to be Judicially Reviewed in May.

For no good reason the UK Supreme Court Law Lords also seem unwilling to defend British sovereignty, in cases, like that of Ian Norris or the NatWest 3 bankers (referred to as the Bermingham case in this Judgment) or, of course, Gary McKinnon, where someone could be been tried in a British Court, rather than a United States one.

67. Extradition proceedings should not become the occasion for a debate about the most convenient forum for criminal proceedings. Rarely, if ever, on an issue of proportionality, could the possibility of bringing criminal proceedings in this jurisdiction be capable of tipping the scales against extradition in accordance with this country's treaty obligations. Unless the judge reaches the conclusion that the scales are finely balanced he should not enter into an enquiry as to the possibility of prosecution in this country.

Why ever not ? There is no universal principle of international law that demands this at all, and many countries do not allow extradition of their nationals to foreign jurisdictions under any circumstances - they conduct a trial in the home country.

Th Register reports:

McKinnon gets a date for 'final' appeal

May appointment with destiny

By John Leyden

Posted in Law, 22nd February 2010 09:54 GMT

Pentagon hacker Gary McKinnon and his legal team have been given three months to prepare for a judicial hearing on whether the Home Secretary proceeded correctly in allowing extradition proceedings to proceed in spite of dire medical warnings.

A judicial review will consider the strength of medical opinion that the Asperger's Syndrome sufferer was likely to crack under the strain of a US trial and likely imprisonment.

The date of a two day hearing before two senior judges has been set for 25 and 26 May, McKinnon's mum said last Friday. A ruling can be expected to follow two weeks or so later, by which time a general election will almost certainly have taken place. If opinion polls are to be believed, this is likely to leave Britain with a new government, a factor that may well play to McKinnon's favour. The opposition Tories have tabled debates against the US-UK extradition treaty calling for its reform, in support of McKinnon.


Remember that this Judicial review will not cross-examine any of the allegations, including the vastly over-inflated claims about "financial" damage, or any actual witnesses or evidence against gary.

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



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


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).

The Daily Telegraph reports:

Gary McKinnon wins judicial review of extradition decision

A High Court judge will rule on whether Alan Johnson was wrong to allow the extradition of computer hacker Gary McKinnon after his lawyers were granted permission for judicial review.

Published: 4:18PM GMT 13 Jan 2010

Mr McKinnon's lawyer, Karen Todner, said she was ''delighted'' by the decision. A hearing is likely to take place in April or May with a judge to rule on whether the Home Secretary was right to decide that sending him to the US for trial would not breach his human rights.


She said in a statement: ''I am delighted that the High Court has agreed to grant permission for the judicial review of Alan Johnson's decision to extradite Gary McKinnon.

''However, that is countered by the very poor mental state of Mr McKinnon due to the ongoing pressure of these proceedings.

''I would urge Mr Johnson to review his decision and I appeal to President Obama to withdraw the application for extradition. Mr McKinnon's suffering has gone on long enough.''


Since Judgments may take several weeks or months to be published, the outcome of this Judicial Review is very likely to be after the forthcoming General Election, and over 8 years since Gary was first arrested.

We hope that you will all ask your election candidates to publicly state exactly what they would do with the Gary McKinnon case, or with future extradition cases to the USA which could be tried here in the UK, if they became Home Secretary after the next election, and then to vote accordingly.

This Parliamentary Written Question , by Andrew MacKinlay MP, one of the senior Members of Parliament who attended the demonstration in support of Gary McKinnon at the Home Office, is interesting:

HC Deb, 7 January 2010, c518W

Extradition: USA
Home Department

Written answers and statements, 7 January 2010

Andrew MacKinlay (Thurrock, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his duty to assess the appropriateness of extraditing persons to the US in relation to health grounds applies (a) at the time of the receipt of the US application, (b) at the time of proceedings in the UK and (c) at the time immediately before the extradition takes place; and if he will make a statement.

Meg Hillier (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Hackney South & Shoreditch, Labour)

holding answer 6 January 2010

In the scheme of the Extradition Act 2003, it falls to the courts to determine whether health factors raise a barrier to a person's extradition. However, the Home Secretary has an implied power to withdraw an extradition order where, exceptionally, a new matter arises subsequent to the completion of all proceedings under the Act but before extradition takes place. The basis for this implied power is section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which renders it unlawful for the Home Secretary, as a public authority, to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

Presumably this Parliamentary Written Answer is the latest considered view of the Home Office's legal advisors.

This rather contradicts Home Secretary Alan Johnson's earlier testimony in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee, where he did his Pontius Pilate like shrugging of shoulders, claiming that he had no power to intervene and stop the extradition of Gary McKinnon to the USA.

Text GARY to 65000 to join petition

Two major online campaigns - a text petition and the "Chicago" song download - are being launched this week demonstrating continued, and widespread, public opposition to the extradition of Gary McKinnon.

Time is running out for Gary as he nears the end of legal challenges in the UK courts.

The text petition, spearheaded by Janis Sharp, Gary's mum, and key supporters, urges voters to text "Gary" to 65000, by way of demonstrating their support. Evidence of petitioner numbers will be sent on a regular basis to the Home Secretary, as well as to the Conservative & Lib Dem Shadow Home Secretaries in this, an election year.

The ambition is two-fold, first to give voters an opportunity to directly manifest their frustration at a lack of protection for vulnerable UK citizens such as Gary, and second to encourage the main political parties to reform our imbalanced extradition arrangements as part of their manifesto pledges.

Meanwhile via a Facebook and Twitter campaign, Janis is asking Gary's supporters to download the song "Chicago" recorded last year, with and for, Gary, by international musicians David Gilmour, Bob Geldof and Chrissie Hynde.

Janis said:

"The support and compassion shown by members of the public has been a tremendous boost during our 8 year fight to ensure Gary faces justice in the UK.

"I hope this text campaign helps stir the Government from its stupor of inactivity which is simply fuelling the public's sense of outrage at the unnecessary cruelty of the situation.

"Gordon Brown wrung his hands over the execution of a mentally ill British drugs carrier in China. Yet he and his government remain complicit in the US authorities' hounding of my vulnerable son, despite knowing that, for Gary, extradition amounts to nothing less than a death sentence, given his growing mental instability.

"Why can't the UK just ask our supposedly strongest ally, President Obama, to show clemency towards Gary by cancelling the extradition request and allowing a UK prosecution?

"Sending a text takes seconds. Intervening takes moments. Gary has lived in anguish for years.

"As for the music campaign, I hope President Obama will listen to the reworded version of "Chicago" which is a direct plea to him. If he personally learns of Gary's plight perhaps he may show compassion of his own accord, and allow my son to be tried in Britain."

Last month, Gary's legal team filed an application for judicial review of the Home Secretary's most recent decision not to halt extradition despite overwhelmingly compelling evidence of Gary's mental deterioration, and expert warnings of the onset of psychosis and probable suicide that his extradition would trigger. The courts are still considering this Judicial Review application.

The SMS text message "GARY" to the (UK only) short code 65000 will be charged at normal UK network rates.

You well get a reply e.g.

Thx 4 ur support 4 Gary McKinnon. Pls ask mates 2 txt GARY to 65000. Stop his extradition b4 2 late. We will petition ur support to politicians.

Hopefully this will put some more pressure on the UK Government, on behalf of Gary McKinnon, and all the other people who are at risk from the unequal and unjust UK / USA extradition laws and political.expediency at the expense of vulnerable individuals and British sovereignty..

Down load the "Chicago / Change the World" protest song

The song Chicago/Change The World,originally by Graham Nash, now performed by Chrissie Hynde / David Gilmour / Bob Geldof / Gary McKinnon, is available to download via:

Prices currently range from 69p - 99p

Eminent Supporters

The Campaign to halt Gary's extradition has been supported by a growing number of people as well as organisations such as the National Autistic Society and Liberty.

There is regular support for Gary on Twitter and multiple Facebook groups and web forums. Online polls consistently show that the public do not believe he should be extradited.

He is also backed by a wide number of cross-party politicians:

David Cameron MP, Nick Clegg MP, Chris Grayling MP, Chris Huhne MP, James Brokenshire MP, David Burrowes MP, Mayor Boris Johnson, Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP, Keith Vaz MP, Charles Kennedy MP, Sir Menzies Campbell MP, Kate Hoey MP, David Blunkett MP, Andrew MacKinley MP, Lord Carlile QC, Vince Cable MP, Simon Hughes MP, Norman Baker MP Tim Loughton MP, Peter Kilfoyle MP, Lord Morris of Manchester, Lord Clement-Jones of Clapham, Alan Simpson MP, Tom Watson MP, among others

and other high profile individuals:

Sarah Brown, Trudie Styler, Sting, David Gilmour, Julie Christie, Peter Gabriel, Keith Duffey, Emma Nobel, Terry Waite CBE, Tony Benn, Nick Hornby, Barry Norman, Jilly Cooper, Trevor Baylis, Dr Dawn Heather, Professor Baron-Cohen, Nadine Stavonina, Peter Howson, Dr. Liz Nelson OBE, Richard Madeley, Jonathan Ross, Stephen Fry and Duncan Bannatyne.

Some photos of the Demonstration in support of Gary McKinnon at the Home Office on Tuesday 15th December 2009

Many of you will recognise the eight senior Members of Parliament, from across the party political spectrum, who attended this demonstration in solidarity with Gary McKinnon and his family, friends and supporters.

How much longer will the Labour government Ministers, and the Home Office senior civil servants, continue to impose their ill thought out, Kafkaesque, Extradition and Computer Misuse legislation and policies, both on Gary McKinnon, and on all of the rest us in the United Kingdom ?


From left to right:

Lucy Clarke - (Gary McKinnon's girlfriend)

Andrew Mackinlay MP (Thurrock) (Lab)

Chris Huhne MP (Eastliegh) (Lib Dem) - the Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary.

Janis Sharp (Gary McKinnon's mother).

David Burrowes MP (Enfield, Southgate) (Con) - Conservative Party Shadow Minister for Justice, who is also Gary McKinnon's constituency MP.


Chris Huhne MP (Eastliegh) (Lib Dem) - the Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary.

Rt. Hon. Nick Clegg MP (Lib Dem) (Sheffield - Hallam) - Leader of the Liberal Democrat party.

Janis Sharp (Gary McKinnon's mother).

David Burrowes MP (Enfield, Southgate) (Con) - Conservative Party Shadow Minister for Justice

Andrew Mackinlay MP (Thurrock) (Lab)


Janis Sharp (Gary McKinnon's mother)

Rt. Hon. Keith Vaz MP (Leicester East) (Lab), Chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs.


Janis Sharp (Gary McKinnon's mother)

Kate Hoey MP (Vauxhall) (Lab) wearing the red scarf.

David Burrowes MP (Enfield, Southgate) (Con) - Conservative Party Shadow Minister for Justice

Andrew Mackinlay MP (Thurrock) (Lab)


Lucy Clarke (Gary's girlfriend) and Rt. Hon. Keith Vaz MP (Leicester East) (Lab), Chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs. [picture credit: BedfordRed]


Rt. Hon. Nick Clegg MP (Lib Dem) (Sheffield - Hallam) - Leader of the Liberal Democrat party.

Janis Sharp (Gary McKinnon's mother)

David Burrowes MP (Enfield, Southgate) (Con) - Conservative Party Shadow Minister for Justice

Other politicians in attendance included:

Alistair Carmichael MP (Orkney & Shetlands) (Lib Dem)

CouncillorCouncillor Daisy Benson< (Lib Dem) (Greater Reading).


A young demonstrator from Belgium in support of Gary McKinnon.


Janis writes that this boy

had come over from Brussels with his parents for the day specifically for the Demo. It was his Birthday and he asked his parents to take him to London to demonstrate for Gary. All of the demonstrators sang Happy Birthday to him.

Janis Sharp (Gary McKinnon's mother) presents some flowers and a Letter to Her Majesty QUeen Elizabeth, at Buckingham Palace.

Janis writes:

The police on duty were really nice. After the Demo they walked up to the Palace with a crowd of us and the Palace police took me into the foyer of the palace with my flowers and letter for the Queen. The Palace police also took lots of flowers from other people presenting flowers and letters for Gary.

UPDATE 09 December 2009

It appears that the Metropolitan Police are intimidating the organisers, with the threat of arrest under unspecified laws, into not holding a peaceful demonstration at Buckingham Palace.

UPDATE 10th December 2009:

We have been passed an email from Inspector Emma Richards from the Metropolitan Police Royal Parks Operational Command Unit (who could have emailed info@freegary.org.uk directly) which clarifies under which law they are banning the Buckingham Palace demonstration in support of Gary McKinnon:

Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 1639 The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 section 17, which says:

(17) organise or take part in any assembly, display, performance, representation, parade, procession, review or theatrical event;

These words do not actually cover a short term "static political demonstration" or a "plea for mercy".The regulations are to do with commercial exploitation of all of the Royal Parks, and road traffic speed limits etc.

Inspector Richards went on to say:

I am concerned that the wording implies that the Metropolitan Police is against your demonstration/cause. A detrimental comment has been made on the website and I am keen to stop this escalating. The reason for the refusal is due to the legislation.

That is exactly the impression which the Metropolitan Police Service at Charing Cross Police Station, who dealt with the SOCPA 2005 section 132 -138 Designated Area prior written application for the Home office demonstration gave, by failing to clearly communicate about this regulation in the first place, but instead, talking disproportionately and inappropriately about "terrorism".

There will be now be another peaceful demonstration in support of Gary McKinnon, at the Home Office in Marsham Street, London, this coming Tuesday 15th December 2009 from 12 noon until 2pm and from 2pm onwards at Buckingham Palace.

Media Contact details:

email us here at info@Freegary.org.uk. If you are IT security conscious, and technically capable, then you can make use of our PGP Public encryption key.

We will pass on your messages to the demonstration organisers and spokespeople, or try to answer your queries ourselves.

Home Office

Will Home Secretary Alan Johnson and his senior civil servant advisors at the Home Office get the message from the British public, and manage to get themselves out of the political mess which they have created, over the Extradition Act 2003 and the Gary McKinnon extradition case ?

Tuesday 15th December 2009 from 12 noon until 2pm

Home Office main entrance, Peel Building (between the defensive / ornamental moats ponds) , Marsham Street, Westminster, London - see this location map


Nearest Tube stations:
Westminster or St. James Park - see the Transport for London website for journey planning details.

London Bus Route 88 Clapham Common - Vauxhall - Westminster - Oxford Circus - Camden Town, stops directly outside the Home Office main entrance in Marsham Street, supposedly every 7 or 8 minutes.

Public toilets:

There is a Westminster Council run public toilet quite close to the Home Office in Regency Place:-- turn right along Horseferry Road at the southern end of Marsham Street.

See Regency Place public toilet location map

SOCPA 2005 s 132 Designated Area

The Home Office is, inappropriately, just within the Designated Area around Parliament Square, so the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 sections 132 to 138 apply. The organisers have already applied for the necessary prior written permission.

Loudspeakers and loudhailers are banned, but, given the volume of the chanting at the previous demonstrations, these would probably be superfluous anyway.

The Metropolitan Police can impose arbitrary extra conditions, at the time of the demonstration, but, hopefully, if things go as per the previous demonstrations at the Home Office, there should be no problems.

Buckingham Palace

There will also be a demonstration at Buckingham Palace at the western end of The Mall, London, next Tuesday 15th December 2009 from 2pm onwards

Will Her Majesty the Queen be able to influence her stubborn Labour Government to treat Gary McKinnon with mercy, and not allow him to be extradited to the USA, but to be tried here in the United Kingdom ?

Tuesday 15th December 2009 from 2pm onwards

Buckingham Palace, The Mall, London SW1 1AA

Location Map of Buckingham Palace

Nearest Tube stations:
Victoria (and mainline railway), Green Park, Hyde Park Corner or St. James's Park - see the Transport for London website for journey planning details.

There are lots of buses which stop near Buckingham Palace e.g. Routes 2, 16, 36, 38, 52, 73, 82, 148, 436, 701, C2, 702, 797, X90

See London Bus Routes

Public toilets:

There are no Westminster Council run public toilets near Buckingham Palace.

Buckingham Palace is a SOCPA 2005 section 128 Protected SIte

Buckingham Palace is not within the Serious Organised Crime Act 2005 section 132 - 138 Designated Area around Parliament Square.

However, it is a Protected Site under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 section 128 Offence of trespassing on protected site, (previously a Designated Site until the Terrorism Act 2006 amendment which changed the word "designated" to "protected").

Statutory Instrument 2007 No. 930 The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Designated Sites under Section 128) Order 2007 designates:

(b) Buckingham Palace, the Mall, London, SW1A 1AA and its curtilage, including the buildings within that curtilage;

The curtilage means the outer walls and fences and gates of the site.

You can be arrested, but only by a constable in uniform not by Police Community Support Officers or by other security staff or military personnel on guard at Buckingham Palace,if you cross the gates, fences or walls of this outer boundary of the site. You would then face up to 51 weeks in prison and / or a level 5 fine (up to £5000).

Writing to Her Majesty The Queen

Contact Members of the Royal Family

In advance of the demonstration, you could write to Her Majesty the Queen, in support of Gary McKinnon:

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA

Start your letter formally to "Your Majesty".

More hints and tips about going on a demonstration in this part of central London:

Home Secretary Alan Johnson faced numerous MPs in the debate in the Chamber of the House of Commons

Commons Hansard 1 Dec 2009 : Column 975 Gary McKinnon (Extradition)

Gary McKinnon (Extradition)

3.34 pm

Mr. David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con) (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his decision not to intervene to stop Gary McKinnon's extradition to the United States.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing this urgent question on behalf of my constituent.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Alan Johnson): Gary McKinnon is accused of serious criminal offences. He is alleged to have repeatedly hacked into US Government computer networks over a period of 13 months, including 97 US military computers from which he deleted vital operating systems and then copied encrypted information on to his own computer, shutting down the entire US army's military district of Washington's computer network for 24 hours. During interviews under caution, Mr. McKinnon admitted to much of the conduct he is accused of.

A great deal has been made of the perceived imbalance in UK-US extradition arrangements in respect of probable cause versus reasonable suspicion. While I am clear that no such imbalance exists, as Mr. McKinnon has admitted the conduct which has given rise to the extradition request, this issue is academic in his case. This aside, under the terms of the Extradition Act 2003, I can prevent an extradition only in very specific circumstances: where the person in question could be sentenced to death if convicted; where there is a chance of that person being tried for crimes committed before that extradition which were not specified in the extradition request; or where the person has previously been extradited to the UK from another country, or transferred here by the International Criminal Court, and no consent has been given to their being extradited elsewhere.

Outside of the statutory extradition scheme, the courts have made it clear that the only circumstances in which I could prevent extradition would be where the evidence demonstrates that extradition would be a breach of human rights. If it would breach human rights to proceed with extradition, I would have to halt proceedings. If it would not, it would be unlawful for me to do so.

Mr. McKinnon has challenged his extradition in the district court, the High Court, with the Law Lords, and in the European Court of Human Rights, all of whom have ruled that the extradition should go ahead. Following the diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome in August 2008, he made fresh representations to the then Home Secretary claiming that because of his medical condition his extradition would breach the European convention on human rights. The then Home Secretary decided in October 2008 that the evidence Mr. McKinnon submitted did not meet the threshold needed to constitute a breach of the ECHR. Mr. McKinnon challenged in the High Court this decision and the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service that there were no grounds for him to be tried in this country.

On 31 July 2009, the High Court handed down both judgments. In its judgment on the Director of Public Prosecution's decision that Mr. McKinnon should be tried in the US, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton said this:

"It is true that the Claimant's offending conduct took place in this country. However, it was directed at the USA, and at computers in the USA; the information he accessed or could have accessed was US information; its confidentiality and sensitivity were American; and any damage that was inflicted was in the USA. The witnesses who can address the damage done by his offences are in America...

Gary McKinnon is not indicted in the USA on anything to do with the alleged "confidentiality and snoensitivity" of any information he may have gleaned. There are espionage allegations, only unsubstantiated claims of financial damage, not involving the theft of any money or goods.

If ,as he alleges, there were plenty of other hackers from around the world invading the same systems at the same time, then half the crucial witnesses and evidence such as United Kingdom Internet Service provider logfiles and the computer he used, are here in the UK, not in the USA. These may or may not prove that Gary was involved with one of the 97 systems at a particular time, but none of that prima facie evidence has been tested in any court, despite all the Extradition hearings and appeals.

Some of it would have been cross examined under the old extradition Act 1989, which was in force when Gary was arrested in 2002., but the retrospectively applied Extradition Act 2003 has prevented that.

However, it is not for this Court to decide where he should be prosecuted. The decision is that of the DPP. As appears from the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, he cannot be faulted for considering that, other things being equal, the Claimant should be prosecuted in the USA."

He expressed the view that it would be

"manifestly unsatisfactory in the extreme"

for Mr. McKinnon to be tried in the UK and refused permission for this aspect to be judicially reviewed.

Secondly, the Court ruled on 31 July that the decision of the Home Secretary that the extradition of Gary McKinnon to the US would not amount to a breach of his human rights was also correct. The Lord Justice said:

"Ultimately, I have to weigh the impressive medical evidence adduced by the Claimant against the severity involved in Article 3. I have no doubt that he will find extradition to, and trial and sentence and detention in the USA, very difficult indeed. His mental health will suffer. There are risks of worse, including suicide. But if I compare his condition with those considered in the authorities to which I have referred above, even taking full account of the (in my view undesirable) possibility of his being prosecuted in this country, his case does not approach Article 3 severity."

Following that decision, Mr. McKinnon's lawyers made fresh representations, including additional medical evidence. I have carefully considered those representations and I am clear that the information that his lawyers have provided is not materially different from that placed before the High Court earlier this year and does not demonstrate that sending Mr. McKinnon to the United States would breach his human rights.

There are legitimate concerns about Mr. McKinnon's health, and the United States authorities have provided assurances, which were before the High Court in July, that his needs will be met. It is also clear from the proceedings to date that there is no real risk that Mr. McKinnon, if convicted, will serve any of his sentence in a supermax prison. Should Mr. McKinnon be extradited, charged and convicted in the US and seek repatriation to the UK to serve his sentence in this country, the Government will progress his application at the very earliest opportunity.

As I have said at every stage of these proceedings, we will not commence extradition proceedings until all legal avenues that Mr. McKinnon wishes to pursue have been exhausted. He can lodge a judicial review within seven days of this decision, and he can appeal to the ECHR within 14 days of the same date. I am currently considering a request from Mr. McKinnon's lawyers for an extension of the seven-day time limit.

Apart from Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab), who can always be relied on to give his Labour front bench an easy, albeit tangential question, not a single one of the MPs who debated this Statement supported Alan Johnson.

These included:

Mr. David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
Chris Huhne (Eastleigh) (LD)

Mr. Speaker: Order. No fewer than 23 Members are seeking to catch my eye. Naturally, I am keen to accommodate as many as a reasonable allocation of time will allow, but I appeal to each right hon. and hon. Member to ask a single, short supplementary question and, of course, to the Home Secretary to provide an economical reply.

Liz Blackman (Erewash) (Lab)
Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab)
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge) (Con
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
Sir Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife) (LD)
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab)
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Mr. Tom Watson (West Bromwich, East) (Lab)
David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Mrs. Iris Robinson (Strangford) (DUP)
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab)
John Mason (Glasgow, East) (SNP)
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)