Why did it take ten years to block the extradition of Gary McKinnon?

What you believe about the McKinnon extradition case is probably false

The Home Secretary has decided that the extradition of Gary McKinnon will not go ahead. 

Relying on the same human rights law which she has strongly criticised in the past in respect of other extradition cases, the Home Secretary has ruled that the suicide risk is such that it would be contrary to McKinnon's human rights for the extradition to proceed. 

If that is what the evidence is before the Home Secretary in respect of a suicide risk, then it was plainly the right decision for her to make, though it opens obvious questions as to whether it can be now a precedent for other extradition cases.

However, it appears that, but for this determination, the extradition would have proceeded - put another way, the legal case for McKinnon's extradition was otherwise sound.


But how can we best understand how the McKinnon case has taken so long to get to this stage? 

The alleged offences took place in 2001 and 2002, and based on mainstream media accounts, it just seemed such a clear injustice being inflicted on a sympathetic defendant.  

The answer, in part, is that there has long been a mismatch between the mainstream media accounts of the McKinnon case and the underlying legal facts. 

On one hand, there was an admirable, tireless, and spiritied campaign on McKinnon's behalf.  Unfortunately, one consequence of this campaign is that there were many contentions about the case which "everyone knew" even if few ever seemed to check if they were true.

On the other hand, there have been a series of legal judgments which provided a very different perspective on the case. In 2010, in a sequence of blogposts at Jack of Kent, I set out the correct legal position.  This is not to say I believed McKinnon should have been extradited; it was just to balance the media narrative on the case with a more source-based approach.  This was important as, without understanding there was a mismatch between the mainstream media version of the case with the legal realities, one could not understand why the extradition had gone on so long.


My survey at Jack of Kent set out a number of points which did not feature in mainstream media accounts of the case.

First, the contention that all McKinnon was doing was looking for evidence extraterrestrial life had no basis in the legal case.  UFOs played no part in the litigation whatsoever.  The UFO explanation was never provided by McKinnon or his legal team in the court cases.  In fact, McKinnon's original case was that his motives were political and he contended that political opinions should be taken so seriously that he should not be allowed to be extradited on those grounds alone.

Then there was the assertion that his offences were trivial and more the fault of lax US security.  Again, this is not supported by the legal documents.  Instead, the alleged offences are serious and were sustained over a lengthy period.  The allegations are in respect of a hacking exercise which took place over fourteen months and involving 96 computers in five US government departments, and which came to an end (it seems) only with his detection and arrest.  The CPS also provided detailed reasons as to why they would not prosecute McKinnon in the UK - and this was not a supririse, as both the unauthorised access and the alleged damage occured entirely in the US.

Moreover, the allegations against McKinnon also went beyond unauthorised access to substantial file deletion and copying.  The US alleged that there was significant operational damage and that they could evidence the damage.

It was also usually overlooked that the unauthorised access (ie the offence) had been actually admitted by McKinnon's legal team (so it was likely to be no issue to be tried).  His legal team even indicated that he may also admit the damage as well as the unauthorised access.

Accordingly, the US could thereby show a prima facie case.  Therefore the disparities in respect of the UK/US extradition arrangements were not actually relevant in this case -  the notorious "one-sided" extradition treaty was a red herring here, even if it was relevant in other cases.

And given the human dimension in all this, and perhaps most importantly of all, the US even provided detailed assurances as to how McKinnon's condition of Asperger's Syndrome would have been accommodated should he be extradited. 

It should also be noted that McKinnon  rejected a highly advantageous plea bargain in 2003 (and so would have been free of all this by around 2006, rather than still waiting as late as 2012). 

Finally, the US also stated that there was no principled opposition to McKinnon applying to serve his sentence in the UK.


The McKinnon legal case was never how the mainstram media presented the case; and so it was always difficult for anyone following to comprehend why the extradition went on for so long.

But, unless the DPP decides to now prosecute McKinnon in England, none of the above legal analysis matters any more. 

It would appear the "Free Gary" campaign has succeeded in keeping the case going in England until they could get the official decision they sought. This is an incredible achievement.  The fact that the legal realities of the case were often ignored along the way by the mainstream media is now perhaps only of academic importance.



(Supporting analysis and links to all the above is at my blog at Jack of Kent.)

Gary McKinnon. Photograph: Getty Images

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn supporters should stop excusing Labour’s anti-immigration drift

The Labour leader is a passionate defender of migrants’ rights – Brexit shouldn’t distract the new left movement from that.

Something strange is happening on the British left – a kind of deliberate collective amnesia. During the EU referendum, the overwhelming majority of the left backed Remain.

Contrary to a common myth, both Jeremy Corbyn and the movement behind him put their weight into a campaign that argued forcefully for internationalism, migrants’ rights and regulatory protections.

And yet now, as Labour’s policy on Brexit hardens, swathes of the left appear to be embracing Lexit, and a set of arguments which they would have laughed off stage barely a year ago.

The example of free movement is glaring and obvious, but worth rehashing. When Labour went into the 2017 general election promising to end free movement with the EU, it did so with a wider election campaign whose tone was more pro-migrant than any before it.

Nonetheless, the policy itself, along with restricting migrants’ access to public funds, stood in a long tradition of Labour triangulating to the right on immigration for electorally calculated reasons. When Ed Miliband promised “tough controls on immigration”, the left rightly attacked him.  

The result of this contradiction is that those on the left who want to agree unequivocally with the leadership must find left-wing reasons for doing so. And so, activists who have spent years declaring their solidarity with migrants and calling for a borderless world can now be found contemplating ways for the biggest expansion of border controls in recent British history – which is what the end of free movement would mean – to seem progressive, or like an opportunity.

The idea that giving ground to migrant-bashing narratives or being harsher on Poles might make life easier for non-EU migrants was rightly dismissed by most left-wing activists during the referendum.

Now, some are going quiet or altering course.

On the Single Market, too, neo-Lexit is making a comeback. Having argued passionately in favour of membership, both the Labour leadership and a wider layer of its supporters now argue – to some extent or another – that only by leaving the Single Market could Labour implement a manifesto.

This is simply wrong: there is very little in Labour’s manifesto that does not have an already-existing precedent in continental Europe. In fact, the levers of the EU are a key tool for clamping down on the power of big capital.

In recent speeches, Corbyn has spoken about the Posted Workers’ Directive – but this accounts for about 0.17 per cent of the workforce, and is about to be radically reformed by the European Parliament.

The dangers of this position are serious. If Labour’s leadership takes the path of least resistance on immigration policy and international integration, and its support base rationalises these compromises uncritically, then the logic of the Brexit vote – its borders, its affirmation of anti-migrant narratives, its rising nationalist sentiment – will be mainlined into Labour Party policy.

Socialism in One Country and a return to the nation state cannot work for the left, but they are being championed by the neo-Lexiteers. In one widely shared blogpost on Novara Media, one commentator even goes as far as alluding to Britain’s Road to Socialism – the official programme of the orthodox Communist Party.

The muted and supportive reaction of Labour’s left to the leadership’s compromises on migration and Brexit owes much to the inept positioning of the Labour right. Centrists may gain personal profile and factional capital when the weaponising the issue, but the consequences have been dire.

Around 80 per cent of Labour members still want a second referendum, and making himself the “stop Brexit” candidate could in a parallel universe have been Owen Smith’s path to victory in the second leadership election.

But it meant that in the summer of 2016, when the mass base of Corbynism hardened its factional resolve, it did so under siege not just from rebelling MPs, but from the “Remoaners” as well.

At every juncture, the strategy of the centrist Labour and media establishment has made Brexit more likely. Every time a veteran of the New Labour era – many of whom have appalling records on, for instance, migrants’ rights – tells Labour members to fight Brexit, party members run a mile.

If Tony Blair’s messiah complex was accurate, he would have saved us all a long time ago – by shutting up and going away. The atmosphere of subterfuge and siege from MPs and the liberal press has, by necessity, created a culture of loyalty and intellectual conformity on the left.

But with its position in the party unassailable, and a radical Labour government within touching distance of Downing Street, the last thing the Labour leadership now needs is a wave of Corbynite loyalty-hipsters hailing its every word.

As the history of every attempt to form a radical government shows, what we desperately need is a movement with its own internal democratic life, and an activist army that can push its leaders as well as deliver leaflets for them.

Lexit is no more possible now than it was during the EU referendum, and the support base of the Labour left and the wider party is overwhelmingly in favour of free movement and EU membership.

Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Diane Abbott are passionate, principled advocates for migrants’ rights and internationalism. By showing leadership, Labour can once again change what is electorally possible.