And another thing…

YOU OFTEN hear claims that the treaty under which Gary McKinnon’s extradition is being sought was constructed specifically for dealing with terrorists.

This is false.

The explanatory notes to the Extradition Act 2003 state:

The Government set out its proposals to reform the law on extradition in a consultation document “The Law on Extradition: A Review” in March 2001.

That was six month before 9/11, incidentally. Crucially, it states:

Crime, particularly serious crime, is becoming increasingly international in nature and criminals can flee justice by crossing borders with increasing ease. Improved judicial co-operation between nations is needed to tackle this development. The reform of the United Kingdom’s extradition law is designed to contribute to that process.

Extradition is an important tool in dealing with international crime: no one should be able to escape justice by simply crossing a border. The law should provide a quick and effective framework to extradite a person to the country where he is accused or has been convicted of a serious crime, provided that this does not breach his fundamental human rights.

So, no mention specifically of extraditing terrorists, although we can assume that terrorism falls under the “serious crime” heading.

And yet a myth – one of many in this case – has developed that Gary is to be extradited under legislation “intended” for terrorists. And I have been asked quite a few times on my Twitter page whether I think Gary is a terrorist. To which my answer, of course, is “no”. If he were facing terrorist charges in the US, the indictment would have made mention of the fact.

The Extradition Act 2003 was framed in order to deal with serious crimes. And, as Alan Johnson told the Commons today:

Gary is accused of serious criminal offences. He is alleged to have repeatedly hacked into US Government computer networks over a period of 13 months, including 97 US military computers from which he deleted vital operating systems and then copied encrypted information on to his own computer, shutting down the entire US army’s military district of Washington’s computer network for 24 hours. During interviews under caution, Mr. McKinnon admitted to much of the conduct he is accused of.

And another thing…

Regarding our allegedly “imbalanced” extradition trearty with the US, Alan told the Commons:

…members of both main Opposition parties have argued about this point. That argument was made in 2003, when the treaty was being concluded. What has happened since? In how many cases have we failed to get extradition from the US? None. Zilch. Nil. None whatsoever. Every case we have made to the US using probable cause has been successful. In contrast, there are seven cases in which the US has sought extradition from this country that are still held up in the system

I wonder if that fact will be covered by tomorrow’s Daily Mail? Hmm…

(You can read #1-6 of the Gary McKinnon myths here.)

ALAN JOHNSON, the Home Secretary, made a statement in the Commons this afternoon in response to an Urgent Question (they used to be known as “Private Notice Questions”) from Gary McKinnon’s MP, David Burrowes.

Alan dashed the hopes of campaigners hoping he would intervene in the extradition process. At the risk of boring you all, I thought it would be useful to reproduce Alan’s entire openign statement, since it is the most comprehensive and logical response to the “Free Gary” campaign I have heard.

Gary McKinnon is accused of serious criminal offences. He is alleged to have repeatedly hacked into US Government computer networks over a period of 13 months, including 97 US military computers from which he deleted vital operating systems and then copied encrypted information on to his own computer, shutting down the entire US army’s military district of Washington’s computer network for 24 hours. During interviews under caution, Mr. McKinnon admitted to much of the conduct he is accused of.

A great deal has been made of the perceived imbalance in UK-US extradition arrangements in respect of probable cause versus reasonable suspicion. While I am clear that no such imbalance exists, as Mr. McKinnon has admitted the conduct which has given rise to the extradition request, this issue is academic in his case. This aside, under the terms of the Extradition Act 2003, I can prevent an extradition only in very specific circumstances: where the person in question could be sentenced to death if convicted; where there is a chance of that person being tried for crimes committed before that extradition which were not specified in the extradition request; or where the person has previously been extradited to the UK from another country, or transferred here by the International Criminal Court, and no consent has been given to their being extradited elsewhere.

Outside of the statutory extradition scheme, the courts have made it clear that the only circumstances in which I could prevent extradition would be where the evidence demonstrates that extradition would be a breach of human rights. If it would breach human rights to proceed with extradition, I would have to halt proceedings. If it would not, it would be unlawful for me to do so.

Mr. McKinnon has challenged his extradition in the district court, the High Court, with the Law Lords, and in the European Court of Human Rights, all of whom have ruled that the extradition should go ahead. Following the diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome in August 2008, he made fresh representations to the then Home Secretary claiming that because of his medical condition his extradition would breach the European convention on human rights. The then Home Secretary decided in October 2008 that the evidence Mr. McKinnon submitted did not meet the threshold needed to constitute a breach of the ECHR. Mr. McKinnon challenged in the High Court this decision and the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service that there were no grounds for him to be tried in this country.

On 31 July 2009, the High Court handed down both judgments. In its judgment on the Director of Public Prosecution’s decision that Mr. McKinnon should be tried in the US, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton said this:

“It is true that the Claimant’s offending conduct took place in this country. However, it was directed at the USA, and at computers in the USA; the information he accessed or could have accessed was US information; its confidentiality and sensitivity were American; and any damage that was inflicted was in the USA. The witnesses who can address the damage done by his offences are in America…However, it is not for this Court to decide where he should be prosecuted. The decision is that of the DPP. As appears from the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, he cannot be faulted for considering that, other things being equal, the Claimant should be prosecuted in the USA.”

He expressed the view that it would be

“manifestly unsatisfactory in the extreme”

for Mr. McKinnon to be tried in the UK and refused permission for this aspect to be judicially reviewed.

Secondly, the Court ruled on 31 July that the decision of the Home Secretary that the extradition of Gary McKinnon to the US would not amount to a breach of his human rights was also correct. The Lord Justice said:

“Ultimately, I have to weigh the impressive medical evidence adduced by the Claimant against the severity involved in Article 3. I have no doubt that he will find extradition to, and trial and sentence and detention in the USA, very difficult indeed. His mental health will suffer. There are risks of worse, including suicide. But if I compare his condition with those considered in the authorities to which I have referred above, even taking full account of the (in my view undesirable) possibility of his being prosecuted in this country, his case does not approach Article 3 severity.”

Following that decision, Mr. McKinnon’s lawyers made fresh representations, including additional medical evidence. I have carefully considered those representations and I am clear that the information that his lawyers have provided is not materially different from that placed before the High Court earlier this year and does not demonstrate that sending Mr. McKinnon to the United States would breach his human rights.

There are legitimate concerns about Mr. McKinnon’s health, and the United States authorities have provided assurances, which were before the High Court in July, that his needs will be met. It is also clear from the proceedings to date that there is no real risk that Mr. McKinnon, if convicted, will serve any of his sentence in a supermax prison. Should Mr. McKinnon be extradited, charged and convicted in the US and seek repatriation to the UK to serve his sentence in this country, the Government will progress his application at the very earliest opportunity.

As I have said at every stage of these proceedings, we will not commence extradition proceedings until all legal avenues that Mr. McKinnon wishes to pursue have been exhausted. He can lodge a judicial review within seven days of this decision, and he can appeal to the ECHR within 14 days of the same date. I am currently considering a request from Mr. McKinnon’s lawyers for an extension of the seven-day time limit.

ACCORDING to Professor David Nutt, mere democratically-elected politicians cannot be trusted to implement important policy decisions. Instead, dead brainy types – like him, for example – should be allowed to run the country without all this democratic accountability and such stuff and nonsense.

Nutt said:

Until Gordon Brown took office there has never been a recommendation about drug classification from the council that has been rejected by government. Gordon Brown comes into office and soon after that he starts saying absurd things like cannabis is lethal… it has to be a Class B drug. He has made his mind up.

We went back, we looked at the evidence, we said, “No, no, there is no extra evidence of harm, it’s still a Class C drug.”

He said, ‘Tough, it’s going to be Class B.”

The damn cheek of these pols who have opinions of their own! Don’t they realise that the job of government and parliament is simply to rubber stamp the decisions of their advisers?

Advisers advise – ministers decide. It’s a fundamental principle of democracy. We cannot and should not farm out every policy decision to unelected advisers. Ministers should treat the advice they receive seriously, of course. But then they should apply their own political judgment. Some will be horrified at the suggestion that politics should even come into it, but that’s what democracy is about – elected politicians being paid to exercise their political judgment on behalf of their constituents and the country.

When the government (rightly) rejected advice given to it by the Electoral Commission a few years back, the LibDems in the Commons were outraged. Well, of course they were – that’s what they’re there for. What’s the point of setting up a body like the Electoral Commission when you don’t accept its recommendations, they asked, their collective bottom lip quivering. For a party which never stops whining about how undemocratic the UK allegedly is, the LibDems are surprisingly eager to delegate sovereignty to other people.

The actual arguments about cannabis reclassification are another issue. The point is that if politicians are seen to make the wrong decision, after listening to all the advice, then they will pay the price for that at the ballot box. Appointed advisers can’t, by definition, be held accountable in that way. All they can do is throw their toys out the pram, ignore the collective responsibility that’s necessary for government to work and encourage their fomer colleagues to throw a strop as well.

One last point: Alan Johnson could so easily have kept this controversy alive by equivocating about whether or not to sack Nutt. “I have complete faith in Professor Nutt,” you can imagine him insisting to reporters as the saga wore on, inflicting more and more damage on the government during the three or four weeks leading up to Nutt’s inevitable dismissal. Instead, the Home Secretary acted refreshingly quickly and decisively, and he should be congratulated for displaying the smack (no pun intended) of firm leadership.

THERE’S a nice anecdote over on John Rentoul’s Independent Minds blog about Frank Field and Alan Johnson, two colleagues for whom I have a huge amount of respect.

It seems that when Frank was making his resignation speech following his year as minister for welfare reform, government whips (allegedly) passed a note round Labour back benchers suggesting they disrupt Frank’s delivery by leaving at different times during the speech. Alan, who, as Frank rightly says, could have expected high office given his background as the leader of a trade union, not only ignored the note’s contents but tore it up and sat through the whole of the speech.

ONE OF the disappointing aspects of recent government policy has been an apparent sidelining of the respect agenda and the consequent lack of emphasis on the use of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (Asbos).

So when I read that Alan Johnson has sensibly decided to revive their use, I was encouraged. I was even more encouraged when I read Henry Porter’s condemnation of the move. Asbos are "vindictive" and "dumb", writes Porter. Hmm… I wonder if he lives (a) in an area with high levels of anti-social behaviour, or (b) in an area where the issue doesn’t really raise its head?

The strongest, most voluble opposition to Asbos has always — always — come from those middle class professionals whose wealth insulates them from the harsher consequences of anti-social behaviour. Those most badly affected, whose lives are regularly made a living hell by the yobs, the neds, the thugs, the drunks, the druggies and the dealers, are inevitably the ones who most strongly welcomed the introduction of Asbos. If they are disappointed, it’s disappointment that local authorities, police forces and courts have not been as enthusiastic in their use as local communities would like or had expected.

There is no injustice in imposing a legal obligation on an individual to behave as if he or she has some respect for his or her community. There is no civil liberties infringement in insisting that an individual desists from harassing others.

And there is nothing wrong in informing someone that he or she is responsible for their own behaviour and that if they deliberately continue to pursue an offensive course of action, then like anyone else, they will face consequences for their actions.

LISTEN to the noise made by Diane Abbott as Keith Vaz welcomes Alan Johnson to his new post. Disgraceful. But I did laugh.

Hat-tip to PlayPolitical.com.

AS I’VE WRITTEN here before, I’m a great fan of Alan Johnson. Top man. Shame about his views on electoral reform.

And as I’ve also written here before, the middle of a crisis about MPs’ expenses is not the appropriate time to come up with solutions that have bugger all to do with the problem: like using a laser printer to crack  a nut, as it were.

Yet for some reason, despite my entreaties, the political classes — absolutely no-one from the normal “I’ve got a life” classes, mind you — are talking about nothing but electoral reform, an elected Lords, fixed-term parliaments and… er, what else… now, let’s see… ah, yes — MPs’ expenses.

Alan’s proposal (which for some reason other members of the Cabinet seem to be supporting. Well, why not talk endlessly about obscure constitutional niceties? Not as if they have a country to run or anything…) is for a referendum on AV-plus on the same day as the general election.

If we must go down this road (and please, let’s not), then by all means let’s commit to such a referendum in the next Labour Party manifesto. And to stop all the inevitable whinging along the lines of “But we can’t believe you because you promised this in 1997 and it never happened, boo hoo, etc…” we could commit to holding it in on a specific date — say, the same day as the next local authority elections. 

I suggest this because it is technically possible that Labour might not win the general election, and it would be ridiculous for there to be an affirmative result in a referendum — a referendum which Cameron’s party would be likely to oppose in the first place — and expect the incoming government to honour the result. 

That’s what I’ll be arguing within the party in the next few months. But only if I lose the argument that there should be no change, and no referendum, at all.

ALAN Johnson is an impressive politician.

He is articulate and principled, and he commands the respect of a huge number of Labour MPs. I was proud to be among his many supporters when he stood (unsuccessfully) for the deputy leadership of our party in 2007. He’s also proven himself to be not only one of the most effective Cabinet ministers we have, but also sure-footed and charming when dealing with the media. He also happens to be a really nice bloke.

But he’s wrong on electoral reform.

To be fair, he’s been wrong on this consistently for a number of years. His article in today’s Times is worth reading, nonetheless. I’ve written here only recently about the folly of using the expenses scandal as an excuse to lever in unrelated constitutional reforms. And a referendum on electoral reform, held on polling day at the next general election would be precisely the wrong time to ask voters for their judgment on the issue. The decision to implement such a fundamental change to our democracy has to be taken in the cold light of day, after serious and calm debate, not a matter of months after the start of the worst scandal ever to hit Westminster and at a time when voters’ opinion of politicians is at its lowest in recorded history.

As to the substantive issue, this is how I’d explain our current first-past-the-post system:

You vote for one candidate and the one with the highest number of votes wins.

This is how Alan explains his preferred system (AV+) in today’s article:

On polling day, a voter would have two ballot papers. The first would be for choosing the constituency MP: the voter marks his preferences (1, 2, 3 and so on) against the candidates. If one candidate gets more than half of the first preference votes cast, he or she is duly returned. If not, the candidate with the lowest tally is knocked out, and the second (and then third, etc) preferences are redistributed until finally one candidate reaches the magical 50 per cent mark.

On the second ballot paper, the voter simply marks which party she wants to give her vote to. All these votes are tallied up and those parties that exceed the threshold (say 5 per cent) get a proportionate number of seats. The majority of those sitting on the green benches, however, would be constituency MPs.

So, straightforward, eh?

All sorts of claims are made by the  supporters of proportional representation, along the lines of “it would push up voter turnout” and “it would increase representation among ethnic minorities”.

Not the experience of PR when it’s been tried in the UK already. Take the Scottish Parliament, elected on an “additional member” or “assisted places scheme” system. Turnout at both UK general elections held since devolution in 1999 have seen significantly higher turnours than those for the three Holyrood elections, with up to ten per cent higher voter participation in some constituencies. And in all three Holyrood elections, only one non-white candidate has ever been elected.

Similarly in elections to the European Parliament: turnout has been derisory. The more complicated you make it to vote, the fewer people will do so.

I admit that first-past-the-post is a rubbish system — but it’s still better than all the alternatives. 

Sorry, Alan.