I think the Computer Misuse Act might cover it. Though he should do some community service like help the yanks beef up their computer security. Far better value than the cost of a trial and incarcerating him.

Always makes me think of "Sneakers"

You can't charge people retrospectively after changing the law. I stand to be corrected about this but I don't think the computer misuse act was in force when he did what he's admitted to, so he could not be charged with a crime in the UK. That was part of the argument - he was being extradited for something which wasn't actually illegal when he did in the country he did it in.

As to helping the US authorities beef up their security - this was ten years ago and he's been legally banned from owning a computer for most of the meantime. He might as well be helping them track Sputnik.

The whole thing has been a farce from start to finish. It's cost millions of pounds in government legal fees, all for nothing, which is something any sensible person would have figured out as the most likely outcome at the start.

Hopefully it also puts the first nail in the coffin of the ludicrous transatlantic extradition agreement and a few other people will be saved the years of pain-in-the-arse it would otherwise cause before coming to the same conclusion.

So.
Abu Hamza.
Also feeling a bit glum about life.
And off he went...

Don't expect me to feel sorry for him.

Yes, but to be fair, he's brown.*

*i'm not actually stating my side on this one, I think the two cases are wildly different.

Legally I think they're ore similar than distinct. However one man is a bit of a loner with some issues who read something on a screen and the other is one of the world' s most incompetent bomb makers who thought it was fine to tell other people that mass murder was a valid form of protest and, allegedly, worked to enable that behaviour.

They may be legally somewhat equivalent, but morally they're worlds apart.

Jon

I was not sure when the Computer Misuse Act came into force. As for everything else I defer to your knowledge. I do agree that this has been a farce, though I doubt that Cameron has the balls to rip up the extradition treaty.

The Computer Misuse Act came into force in 1990. Gary McKinnon committed his crimes in 2001.

What Gary McKinnon did was most certainly illegal in the UK, but the CPS decided not to prosecute as they could not prove intent. Even if they had prosecuted, once McKinnon had served his sentence he could still have been extradited to the US.

I have mixed feelings about this case, but mostly because I have rather large misgivings about both the extradition treaty and the US "justice" system.

Thanks for clearing that up. Though if he had been tried here wouldn't extraditing him for the same offence amount to double jeopardy and so he could not be extradited?

Out of curiosity, if I stand close to the border of of one country with a rifle, and kill someone who is in the other country, where did the crime occur?

Unclear, but you'll probably end up being tried in The Hague

I heard a piece on the radio about this, yesterday.

People extradited to the US are basically bullied into pleading guilty, according to David Laws.

The example he gave:
They tell you, if you plead guilty you might get (clearly depending on severity) a sentence of a couple of years, out in 12 months. However, they also say if you plead not guilty it will cost you millions, bankrupting you and your family, and carry the maximum sentence possible if and when you're found guilty.

What part of that is justice?

The extradition treaty is also unfairly balanced in favour of the US. They can apply for extradition of an individual based on "Reasonable suspicion", whereas the UK must demonstrate "Probable Cause" which, in legal terms, are worlds apart.

No doubt the CIA are plotting a covert in and out extraction mission - with Assange and McKinnon on the shopping list.

WTF? No intent? You can't accidentally hack into a foreign governments computers.