Re: Gary McKinnon Appeal
Hearing
Dear Law
Lords,
I am writing with regard to
the proposed extradition of British Citizen Gary McKinnon for offences related
to computer mis-use (hacking) in the late 1990’s and early
2000’s.
I must ask you to overrule
Judge Nicholas Evans’s decision of 10th May 2006 to allow
extradition. There are a number of grounds on which the only sensible course of
action should be judged:
1.
As far
as I am aware, the extradition treaty between the UK and the USA has not been
ratified by the US Congress and therefore should not be binding (we are
therefore not obliged to allow the extradition).
2.
Gary has
confessed to a crime and should be prosecuted on this basis – in this country.
It would seem that his prosecution has not been carried forward, so that the
extradition treaty (void though it is) would seem to allow his extradition
(i.e., if I interpret the treaty correctly, if a defendant has been prosecuted
for a crime, he cannot be extradited for it). It is a complete mystery why the
CPS has not moved forward with the prosecution and this in itself should be the
subject of an investigation.
3.
Gary was
originally arrested in 2002 and it was said at the time he would face something
like 6 months community service. Following a trip to the USA by Police, this
“suddenly” became a much longer sentence.
4.
Gary has
already been “strung along” by the system for the last 4 years – even though he
has confessed to his crime. This should count already as a “suspended
sentence”.
5.
As far
as I am aware, the prosecution have produced no tangible evidence of the damage
he caused.
6.
Gary has
disclosed the methods he used to obtain access to the systems concerned. What he
did was akin to walking around a neighbourhood, looking for open doors and
windows (which he found) and then going in and having a look around inside. Of
course, this can be viewed as a type of trespassing – so why does this attract
such a stiff sentence?
7.
There
are Human Rights laws to be considered here – and as such, for example, I have
previously sent a copy of this letter to Amnesty International, whom I hoped
would offer some input into this matter.
8.
Gary has
clearly stated what his intentions were and it seems to me that there should be
much stronger indications that Gary’s intent was malicious before extradition
was allowed. From my own research (which has been ongoing for perhaps a period
of 10 years), I know, through expert witness testimony, that what Gary says he
found does indeed exist. (I would refer you to Donna Hare’s Disclosure Project
testimony from 2001 which partly corroborates McKinnon’s
findings).
So, when you have considered
these 8 points, I hope that you will realise that allowing extradition would
basically mean:
- Seeing a punishment
administered which does not fit the crime.
- A disregard of Human
Rights.
- A contravention of law, as
there is none which has been finalised to allow extradition to take
place.
Please make the correct
decision – for Gary’s sake, the sake of the law, national sovereignty and human
rights.
Yours Most
Sincerely,
Andrew
Johnson
