The British and Irish Legal Information Institute have published the text of the two combined Judicial Review Judgments made against Gary McKinnon which were handed down on Friday 31st July 2009:
Neutral Citation Number:  EWHC 2021 (Admin)
Case Nos.: CO/9914/2008 and CO/4801/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON
MR JUSTICE WILKIE
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF GARY MCKINNON
- and -
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOME AFFAIRS
THE QUEEN on the application of
- and -
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Edward Fitzgerald QC and Ben Cooper (instructed by Kaim Todner LLP) for the Claimant
Hugo Keith QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State for Home Affairs
David Perry QC and Clair Dobbin instructed by the CPS for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Hearing dates: 9, 10 June 2009; 14 July 2009
The Judges rejected Gary McKinnon's lawyers' arguments against the Director of Public Prosecutions
47 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. His opinion that the criminality of the Claimant's offending cannot fully be investigated here cannot be challenged: it is not said to be perverse, and I cannot see any basis on which it could be challenged as such.
and they also rejected their legal arguments regarding the Home Secretary / Home Office.
However they do seem to have allowed for the possibility of a Human Rights Act Article 8 (the right to privacy in communications and family life) judicial review, because of the successful appeal to the House of Lords of Ian Norris (the former chairman of Morgan Crucible plc) , in another case involving extradition to the USA, who is accused of alleged "price fixing" in the USA, for actions which were not, at the time, illegal in the UK.
95 But for the grant of leave to appeal in Norris, I would have refused to grant permission to apply for judicial review on the Article 8 ground. However, in these unusual circumstances, we propose to allow the parties to present further submissions on the question whether we should grant permission for judicial review on Article 8, while refusing judicial review on that ground.
This means that Gary's lawyers are not legally prevented from asking for permission to appeal to what used to the Law Lords, who now, as of this week, will no longer be sitting in the House of Lords, but in the new United Kingdom Supreme Court, which is physically located across Parliament Square from the Palace of Westminster in the former Middlesex Guildhall building
N.B. some of the mainstream media coverage of this has assumed incorrectly that the words "Supreme Court" mean the United States Supreme Court.
Karen Todner, Gary's solicitor, has stated that she will be applying (within the statutory 28 days) for such an appeal to be heard, however, it is by no means certain that this legal avenue will be open or successful..