Correspondence from Ms *****

Dear Alan Johnson

Further to my email to you of 3rd December (Ref T21920/09), I am today advised via your office by telephone that I can expect to receive your reply by 5th January 2010.

In view of the desperate timeframe you have chosen to inflict on Gary McKinnon at this time in regards to his recourse to a Judicial Review of your decision not to halt his extradition, I must say I am concerned somewhat about the possibility that by January 2010 my email will be superseded by events and be rendered academic.

I therefore write to you again, to repeat my exhortation to you to halt this cruel, unjust, and unnecessary extradition. If Queen's Prerogative could be invoked for the signing of the treaty with the USA, it can be invoked again now to halt the extradition and revoke this rotten law. If ever there was a special case, Gary McKinnon is it.

I suggest to you also that you may wish to consider your position as Home Secretary, in the event that you remain unwilling to demonstrate any regard for British Sovereignty, for justice, for Parliamentary or public opinion, or indeed for human rights. I would suggest that your position is fast becoming untenable, while you persist in supporting this extradition.

I look forward to your earliest response

Yours sincerely
Ms *****

cc Karen Buck MP

Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848 Fax: 020 7035 4745 Textphone: 020 7035 4742
E-mail: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

8 December 2009

Reference: T21920/9

Dear Ms *****,

Thank you for your further e-mails to the Home Secretary concerning the USA’s request for the extradition of Mr Gary McKinnon.

You are by now familiar with the history of the case. It is plain that you have been following it closely and we note your continuing strength of feeling about it.

In recent public statements, the Home Secretary has made crystal clear that his decisions on the case have not been taken lightly. The High Court has affirmed, however, that – at variance with how some commentators have reported matters – there is no general discretion by which the Home Secretary may call a halt at this stage to extradition proceedings.

The correct test – again as the court has clarified – is that the Home Secretary must call a halt if to extradite would breach a person’s human rights. If otherwise, extradition must take its course. That, after earnest consideration, was the conclusion at which the Home Secretary arrived on 26 November.

As you have learned, Mr McKinnon’s solicitors are now to mount a judicial challenge to this further decision. We note your point about the time limit for doing so. There is no customary three months period, as you appear to believe. The position as set out in rules of court (the Civil Procedure Rules), is that any judicial review must be lodged promptly and in any event within three must of the disputed decision. In the context and circumstances of this particular case which has already withstood all defence challenges and the very closest judicial scrutiny, the Home Secretary took the view that it was reasonable for any further judicial review to be lodged by 10 December. Mr McKinnon’s solicitors have intimated their ability to lodge by that date.

Bob Wood
Extradition Section

Dear Mr Wood

Thank you very much indeed for your reply to my recent emails to the Home Secretary.

Once again, I am somewhat dismayed by the content therein.

In particular, your repeated references to court decisions in Gary's case only serve to cast doubt upon the integrity of the legal process. This is because the judgements referred to do not appear to be consistent with the facts upon which they purport to be based. As you can imagine, I find this deeply worrying, hence my correspondence with your office.

As regards the Home Secretary's discretion to intervene to halt the extradition, I would be very grateful for your explanation for the discrepancy between the Home Secretary's view, and that of the Commons Select Committee, Liberty, and numerous very eminent barristers. I find it difficult to understand how a man with no legal training could possibly presume to dismiss the widely-held and publicly stated views of the country's top legal minds. It may help you in formulating your answer to know that I watched the Select Committee Hearing on 10th November with my own eyes, as well as being aware of Keith Vaz's recommendations to Alan Johnson arising therefrom.

As to Mr Johnson's view regarding the violation of Mr McKinnon's Human Rights, in particular Article 3 (though I understand Art.8 is pertinent also), I wonder if you could please explain to me exactly what this view is based on? It cannot be based on any consideration of the impact of Gary's Asperger's on the degree of suffering that extradition from his home country would entail. It cannot be based either on any appreciation of how Gary's mental state has been affected by the trauma inflicted upon him thus far. He is suicidal. I would be grateful if you could please detail exactly how much more ill and vulnerable Mr McKinnon would need to be before Mr Johnson would accept that this extradition is a violation of Article 3? As I have stated before, Mr Johnson's view on this point beggars belief, to the point where both his competence and his conscience are called into question. I am not asserting that his decision was taken lightly, merely requesting to know his reasoning. His conclusion is not supported by the premises, you see. It is illogical.

In relation to the time-limit for submitting an application for judicial review, my question was regarding Mr Johnson's reasons for not allowing the three months he is entitled to permit, and more specifically, for not allowing Mr McKinnon's solicitors reasonable time for submission. Aside from it seeming sadistic and unnecessary to insist on seven days, as Mr Johnson initially did, the legal implications of not permitting reasonable time meant that that decision was not defensible, which (among many other things) would appear once again to cast doubt upon Mr Johnson's competence as a decision-maker, and in matters of law.

I infer from your letter that Mr Johnson does not intend to halt the extradition at this time. If that is the case, I must respectfully repeat once again my suggestion that he consider his position as Home Secretary. Mr Johnson's actions are bringing his Office into disrepute. His persistence in lending his support to this malicious, legally dubious, and wholly unnecessary extradition, while appearing to mislead the House of Commons and the public as to the facts of the matter, would imply that he is not a man of good character, and is wholly unsuited for political office.

I look forward to your earliest reply, and continue to hope that Mr Johnson will see fit to halt the extradition.

With very best wishes

Yours sincerely

Ms *****


cc Alan Johnson Home Secretary, Karen Buck MP, Keith Vaz MP

(Interesting how the Home Office fail to address the point about Queen's Prerogative)