By Colin Barker, 3 April 2007 15:56
NEWS
Gary McKinnon, the man accused of hacking into the computer systems of Nasa and other US governmental organisations, has lost his appeal against extradition to the US. But, according to his lawyers, the judges in the appeal court "definitely left the door open" for a further appeal to the House of Lords.
The Court of Appeal took a dim view of the alleged coercion applied to McKinnon, saying it "viewed with a degree of distaste the way in which the American authorities are alleged to have approached the plea bargain negotiations" with McKinnon.
McKinnon's hopes now rest on whether the House of Lords will allow a further appeal. While he has accepted that he hacked into US government sites, McKinnon has consistently denied causing serious damage.
According to his solicitors, although the Court of Appeal turned down McKinnon's case today, remarks made by the judges during the course of the one-day hearing, as well as the judgement, open the possibility that McKinnon could still appeal to the House of Lords. A member of McKinnon's legal team said: "There were questions about the way in which the US handled the appeal. This related to the plea bargain and the coercion applied."
The controversy centred around what was said to McKinnon when he was being offered a plea bargain by the US government. Plea bargains are common in US law but less common, and more informally applied, in the UK. A plea bargain is when the prosecution offers a reduced sentence or other incentive in return for a defendant agreeing to co-operate. In this case, the deal offered to McKinnon agreed was a reduced sentence of three years (as opposed to a possible 15 to 20) if he agreed to co-operate with US authorities. They would also let him serve the sentence in a UK prison and not in a US "super, high-security prison", as Edmund Lawson, QC, for McKinnon's defence, put it.
All parties appear to agree on this part but what was said next was the source of controversy in court. According to McKinnon and his counsel, a US member of the prosecution team then "threatened" McKinnon that if he did not agree to the bargain, they would push for the highest possible penalties and he would be "turned over to New Jersey authorities to see him fry". And, the defence further alleged, the US said if McKinnon did not agree to the deal there would be no chance of him serving his sentence in the UK near his friends and family.
McKinnon's hopes of the case being referred to the House of Lords are not high. The Extradition Act 2003 is a revised version of the original act, which was introduced in the wake of the attack on the World Trade Center and applies only to extradition to the UK from the US. No appeal against extradition has so far been successful and the UK government has no powers under that act to extradite US citizens to the UK.
Colin Barker writes for ZDNet UK
Comments
There are 4 comments. Join the discussion
1. Mr Pink
So the doors were wide open (default remote control software passwords I believe?) and someone walked in and took a look around.
As far as I can tell the "damage caused" is the cost of retrospectively implementing the measures they should have had in place to ensure security in the first place and this prosecution is all about trying to cover the embarrassment of having had pitiful security.
If our MPs genuinely believe this man should be extradited then they don't understand what's involved here. This is trespass, but not criminal damage. The only criminal act is the lack of security at NASA and "heads should roll" (rather than fry) for that.
Anyone in IT disagree that NASA are more to blame than our hacker?
2. anonymous
If this guy was a genuine "ethical hacker" he should have known better and deserves to be reprimanded... However, as usual the USA is over reacting and making a mountain out of an ant hill. Simply because McKinon embarassed their inadquate security precautions.
3. NJ Cesar
I'm in IT and I disagree that NASA is more to blame than McKinnon... Just because it's possible to break the law doesn't mean you should.
If I leave my front door unlocked it doesn't mean anyone has the right to walk into my house.
4. Nick Azazel
The facts of the case are to some degree irrelevant.
What is important here is the way this country cowers down to satisfy the United States of Agression. Tony and his cronies will pass any law to keep in with US government no matter how one sided they are.
I believe that a free McKinnon campaign should be started along the lines of the "Free Mitnick" campaign.
FREE McKINNON!