ufo-tv.com

Archive for the ‘Gary McKinnon’ Category

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.

View the full post on Free Gary McKinnon

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

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.

View the full post on Free Gary McKinnon

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

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

versus

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

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

Observations:

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).

View the full post on Free Gary McKinnon

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

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.

View the full post on Free Gary McKinnon

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

For Gary….. THE UK MUST NOT GIVE IN TO THIS TOTALLY UNBALANCED AND UNJUSTIFIED EXTRADITION CLAIM. NASA are clearly falsifying damage claims to justify their complicity in this farce, and they should not be allowed to get away with it. micman1000 composed and produced the original audio work in this public domain sourced video sequence. micman1000 waives all copyright to allow this material to be downloaded or embedded and used in any way possible in support of Gary’s case.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

On the show tonight, we talk to A Man about the extradition of Gary McKinnon

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

CCTV Doesn’t Keep Us Safe, Yet the Cameras Are Everywhere By Bruce Schneier The Guardian June 26, 2008 Pervasive security cameras don’t substantially reduce crime. There are exceptions, of course, and that’s what gets the press. Most famously, CCTV cameras helped catch James Bulger’s murderers in 1993. And earlier this year, they helped convict Steve Wright of murdering five women in the Ipswich area. But these are the well-publicised exceptions. Overall, CCTV cameras aren’t very effective. This fact has been demonstrated again and again: by a comprehensive study for the Home Office in 2005, by several studies in the US, and again with new data announced last month by New Scotland Yard. They actually solve very few crimes, and their deterrent effect is minimal. Conventional wisdom predicts the opposite. But if that were true, then camera-happy London, with something like 500000, would be the safest city on the planet. It isn’t, of course, because of technological limitations of cameras, organisational limitations of police and the adaptive abilities of criminals. To some, it’s comforting to imagine vigilant police monitoring every camera, but the truth is very different. Most CCTV footage is never looked at until well after a crime is committed. When it is examined, it’s very common for the viewers not to identify suspects. Lighting is bad and images are grainy, and criminals tend not to stare helpfully at the lens. Cameras break far too often. The best camera systems can …

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Gary McKinnon’s mum Janis and Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg discuss the unfair extradition treaty via which Gary may be removed from the UK to the USA over the claims he “damaged” military networks. For full background on the case and media items see exopolitics.org.uk. Janis has registered to stand against former Home Secretary Jack Straw in the North West of England – see www.exopolitics.org.uk in-uk-elections/ -

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

In advance of Monday’s MayDay event for Gary McKinnon: 3rd May, 12 noon, Westminster Bridge. Releasing 99 red balloons for Gary. Please come and make a stand against this gross injustice done by our corrupt and spineless Labour government. No to extradition without evidence. No to extradition for non-extraditable offences. Yes to a fair UK trial for Gary McKinnon. It’s not much to ask, is it? And yes, that is Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne in the video, standing up for justice, decency and common sense. Unlike Alan Johnson, Jack Straw and Gordon Brown, who continue to try and obscure the fact that Gary McKinnon has admitted only a non-extraditable offence, and that all other allegations have been laughed out of court. For real.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Background: A Briton accused of hacking into Nasa and US military computer networks has spoken out about his experiences. (Gary McKinnon was arrested by the UK’s national high-tech crime unit in 2002.) McKinnon earns Lords appeal Pentagon hacker in legal victory By John Leyden Published Tuesday 31st July 2007 10:30 GMT Gary McKinnon, the British hacker facing extradition over allegations he broke into US Military and NASA sites, has earned the right to take his case to the House of Lords.

Be Sociable, Share!

•