Parliamentary researcher Tal Ofer examines the case of Gary McKinnon and asks whether he should be tried under the UK justice system.
The High Court ruled on Friday that the extradition of British hacker Gary McKinnon was a "lawful and proportionate response to his offending". McKinnon, who admitted hacking into US government computers, now faces extradition to the US and up to 70 years in prison if convicted. Both the home secretary and the director of public prosecutions refused to try him in the UK, and it has not been decided whether or not he can appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
Britain is famous for having one of the oldest justice systems in the world. It has set the legal foundations for many countries to follow. Its obvious merits and worldly application belie a seemingly intransigent attitude to the issue of miscarriages of justice, and in this particular case, of extradition agreements. Figures show that Britain has extradited 54 suspects to the US while the US extradited 26 suspects to the UK. This imbalance is even more disappointing when considering the disastrous consequences for McKinnon, who suffers from the Asperger's syndrome, should he will be extradited to face trial in the US. Chief executive of the National Autistic Society Mark Lever said that "people with Asperger syndrome are often more vulnerable than initial appearances would suggest, frequently isolated, often bullied and sadly many experience severe mental health problems if they do not get the right support".
A legal obligation under the extradition treaties also comes with a further moral obligation to know that the best judgements are made in every case. We have to ensure that our justice system takes into account all relevant information and evidence before deciding to extradite a suspect, as in McKinnon's case there are very strong arguments that support him being tried in the UK for his alleged hacking activity.
