Why Did Mc Kinnon's Extradition Become So Controversial?

Introduction

Gary McKinnon’s extradition became controversial because a computer-intrusion case was forced to carry much larger questions about justice between allied states. The United States wanted him tried where the allegedly damaged military and NASA computers were located. His supporters argued that he had acted from Britain, could be prosecuted there, faced potentially disproportionate consequences abroad and was psychologically vulnerable. After years of unsuccessful appeals, the decisive issue was not his claim that he had searched for UFO evidence, but the assessed risk that extradition could lead him to take his own life.

The dispute exposed weaknesses in the way Britain handled cross-border computer crime: where a digitally committed offence should be tried, how much evidence a requesting country should present, whether plea negotiations could become coercive, and who should balance treaty obligations against individual welfare. In October 2012, Home Secretary Theresa May stopped McKinnon’s removal on human-rights grounds. The decision ended a decade-long struggle and helped accelerate wider reform of British extradition law.[GOV.UK]GOV.UKtheresa may statement on gary mckinnon extradition16 Oct 2012 — Theresa May statement on Gary McKinnon extradition. Statement by Home Secretary Theresa May on extradition made on 16 Octob…

The American extradition request

US prosecutors alleged that McKinnon accessed 97 government computers from London between February 2001 and March 2002, including systems belonging to the Army, Navy, Air Force, Department of Defence and NASA. They accused him not merely of looking through poorly secured networks but of copying information, installing remote-access tools, deleting files and causing serious disruption. McKinnon accepted that he had obtained unauthorised access, while disputing the prosecution’s account of deliberate damage and its valuation of the harm caused.[UK Parliament]publications.parliament.ukUK Parliament House of LordsUK ParliamentHouse of Lords - Mckinnon V Government of The United…July 30, 2008 — 30 Jul 2008 — requesting state to engage in plea bar…Published: July 30, 2008

The United States formally sought his extradition in 2004. Proceedings began after his arrest under the Extradition Act 2003 in June 2005, and a district judge sent the case to the Home Secretary in May 2006. The extradition order followed that July. McKinnon then challenged the process through the Divisional Court, the House of Lords, the European Court of Human Rights and further judicial-review proceedings. By 2010, the Home Office described the principal statutory appeals as exhausted, although fresh medical representations remained under consideration.[parliament.uk]publications.parliament.ukUK Parliament House of LordsUK ParliamentHouse of Lords - Mckinnon V Government of The United…July 30, 2008 — 30 Jul 2008 — requesting state to engage in plea bar…Published: July 30, 2008

The American position was straightforward in jurisdictional terms. The computers, agencies, alleged operational disruption and claimed financial losses were in the United States. From that perspective, the fact that McKinnon operated a computer in London did not make Britain the natural place for trial: a network intrusion can be initiated in one country while its intended target and effects lie in another.

For McKinnon’s critics, his UFO-related motive did little to reduce the seriousness of the conduct. Curiosity, political grievance or belief in concealed technology would not authorise entry into defence systems. The allegations also arose in the period surrounding the attacks of 11 September 2001, when interference with military networks was likely to be treated with exceptional severity. British parliamentary summaries of the case recorded allegations of impaired government functions, compromised systems and repair costs exceeding $700,000. Those allegations remained prosecution claims rather than findings reached after a completed trial.[UK Parliament]publications.parliament.ukUK Parliament House of LordsUK ParliamentHouse of Lords - Extradition: UK law and practiceGary McKinnon gained unauthorised access from his home computer. Between 20…

Why the proposed prosecution looked disproportionate

Much of the controversy concerned the contrast between McKinnon’s public image and the language of the American case. Supporters portrayed him as a socially isolated computer enthusiast who had exploited elementary security failures while pursuing supposed evidence of UFO secrecy. US authorities treated the intrusion as a grave attack on military computing infrastructure. The disagreement was therefore not simply over whether unauthorised access had occurred, but over how his conduct, intentions and culpability should be characterised.

The most troubling feature for many British observers was the plea-bargaining discussion that preceded the extradition request. According to the facts later considered by the House of Lords, American prosecutors indicated that voluntary surrender and a guilty plea could produce a sentence of roughly three to four years, with the possibility of returning to Britain after part of it had been served. If McKinnon resisted extradition, went to trial and was convicted, prosecutors suggested that he might receive eight to ten years or more and could not expect their support for repatriation.[UK Parliament]publications.parliament.ukUK Parliament House of LordsUK ParliamentHouse of Lords - Mckinnon V Government of The United…July 30, 2008 — 30 Jul 2008 — requesting state to engage in plea bar…Published: July 30, 2008

McKinnon argued that this disparity amounted to an improper threat: he was being warned that exercising his right to contest extradition would expose him to dramatically harsher treatment. The House of Lords rejected that argument in 2008. It held, in effect, that plea bargaining and encouragement to surrender would have to become extraordinarily unconscionable before they justified stopping extradition as an abuse of process. The court also noted a later assurance that US prosecutors would not oppose a prisoner-transfer application merely because McKinnon had refused to surrender voluntarily.[UK Parliament]publications.parliament.ukUK Parliament House of LordsUK ParliamentHouse of Lords - Mckinnon V Government of The United…July 30, 2008 — 30 Jul 2008 — requesting state to engage in plea bar…Published: July 30, 2008

Legally, the ruling treated the negotiations as a recognisable part of the American criminal system rather than a fatal corruption of the extradition process. Politically, however, the episode reinforced fears that McKinnon would arrive in the United States facing intense pressure to plead guilty. A 2012 Home Affairs Committee report observed more generally that American prosecutors possessed considerable leverage through charge selection and plea agreements, while extradited defendants could experience separation from witnesses, relatives and evidence located in Britain.[UK Parliament]publications.parliament.ukUK Parliament The US-UK Extradition TreatyUK ParliamentThe US-UK Extradition Treaty - Home Affairs Committee30 Mar 2012 — Gary McKinnon, has been charged with several counts of da…

The case also became entangled in claims that the US–UK extradition arrangements were unequal. Campaigners frequently said that the United States could obtain a person from Britain on a lower evidential threshold than Britain faced when seeking someone from America. The official Baker review disputed the practical significance of the difference between the American “probable cause” test and the British “reasonable suspicion” formulation. Critics responded that the deeper problem was procedural: a person in the United States could receive a hearing at which the supporting evidence was examined, while a person in Britain facing a US request did not receive an equivalent trial of the prosecution case before extradition.[UK Parliament]publications.parliament.ukUK Parliament Home Affairs CommitteeUK Parliament Home Affairs Committee

It is therefore too simple to say that the McKinnon case proved the treaty legally one-sided. The government and its reviewers maintained that the countries’ requirements were functionally comparable. What the case plainly demonstrated was a severe loss of public confidence. Many people believed that a British citizen could be sent abroad without a British court first examining the disputed damage evidence in the way it would at a criminal trial.

Why was Britain not the forum for trial?

The jurisdictional question was unusually visible because McKinnon had allegedly operated entirely from a computer in Britain. If his conduct constituted offences under British computer-misuse law, why could British prosecutors not charge him at home?

At the time, extradition courts lacked a fully operational statutory “forum bar” allowing them to refuse surrender because the interests of justice favoured a domestic prosecution. Decisions about which country should prosecute were largely left to prosecuting authorities and international cooperation rather than openly resolved by a judge applying a detailed statutory test. Parliamentary critics complained that this left defendants trapped between agencies: the Home Secretary could say prosecution venue was a matter for prosecutors, while British prosecutors could defer to the United States.[UK Parliament]publications.parliament.ukOpen source on parliament.uk.

The Director of Public Prosecutions had declined to bring a British case, and McKinnon challenged that position. In July 2009, the High Court refused to overturn the decision, considering it highly unsatisfactory for a prosecution to be attempted in Britain on the available arrangements. The court also upheld the then Home Secretary’s conclusion that extradition would not breach McKinnon’s human rights.[Hansard]hansard.parliament.ukHansard Gary Mc Kinnon (ExtraditionHansard Gary Mc Kinnon (Extradition

That outcome angered campaigners because the location of the alleged physical effects seemed to outweigh every personal connection to Britain. McKinnon was in Britain, the computer he used was in Britain, much of the evidence concerning his circumstances was in Britain, and his family and medical support were there. Yet the absence of a strong judicial forum test meant those factors did not automatically permit a court to substitute a British trial for extradition.

The problem was larger than one defendant. Internet offences routinely cross borders without requiring the offender to travel. A person may type commands in one country, pass through infrastructure in several others and affect a system thousands of miles away. McKinnon’s case forced British lawmakers to confront whether the location of the target should normally control prosecution, or whether courts should also evaluate where most of the conduct occurred, where the defendant lived, where evidence could be obtained and where a fair and effective trial could realistically take place.

Mental health changed the case

McKinnon was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome in 2008 and also suffered from depressive illness. His lawyers submitted new psychiatric evidence arguing that the combination of extradition, separation from his support network and fear of American imprisonment created a serious risk of suicide. From that point, the campaign increasingly turned away from arguments about hacking, UFOs or treaty reciprocity and towards the state’s duty to protect life.

British courts initially found the risk insufficient to prohibit extradition. In the 2009 proceedings, the High Court accepted that removal would cause severe distress but upheld the government’s conclusion that safeguards available in the United States prevented the case from reaching the demanding threshold required by the European Convention on Human Rights. Ministers emphasised that several courts, including the European Court of Human Rights, had allowed extradition to proceed.[Hansard]hansard.parliament.ukHansard Gary Mc Kinnon (ExtraditionHansard Gary Mc Kinnon (Extradition

The controversy persisted because medical assessments are not static facts. The relevant question was not simply whether McKinnon had a diagnosis, but how his condition, expressed intentions and behaviour had developed during years under threat of removal. His legal team produced further expert evidence, while the Home Office commissioned its own assessment. The case thereby exposed a difficult feature of lengthy extradition litigation: the process itself can alter the person whose fitness for extradition is being judged.

Public pressure also grew. MPs from different parties, civil-liberties organisations, autism advocates and prominent campaigners argued that extradition would be an excessive response to a vulnerable defendant who could be dealt with in Britain. Others cautioned that medical vulnerability could not become an automatic shield against serious cross-border allegations. The central governance problem was how to respect a valid treaty request without treating assurances of prison healthcare as conclusive where credible evidence suggested a specific and immediate threat to life.

The decision that stopped removal

On 16 October 2012, Theresa May announced that McKinnon would not be extradited. She accepted that the accusations were serious but concluded that he was seriously ill and that removal created such a high risk of suicide that extradition would be incompatible with his human rights. The existing extradition order was withdrawn.[GOV.UK]GOV.UKtheresa may statement on gary mckinnon extradition16 Oct 2012 — Theresa May statement on Gary McKinnon extradition. Statement by Home Secretary Theresa May on extradition made on 16 Octob…

This was not an acquittal and did not establish that the American allegations were exaggerated or false. Nor did it endorse McKinnon’s account of searching for hidden UFO material. It was an executive human-rights decision about the consequences of surrendering one particular person in his particular medical condition.

May’s intervention was striking because earlier judicial challenges had failed. The Home Secretary relied on later and more extensive medical material, including expert conclusions about the seriousness of the suicide risk. Her decision illustrated the residual importance of executive judgement under the system then in force: after the courts had largely cleared the legal path to removal, a minister applied the United Kingdom’s human-rights obligations to the updated evidence and stopped the process.

The decision was also carefully paired with a policy response. May said future human-rights questions should ordinarily be resolved transparently in open court rather than through prolonged representations to the Home Secretary. She supported introducing a forum bar so judges could assess whether justice required prosecution in Britain, while transferring much of the executive’s remaining human-rights role back to the judiciary.[GOV.UK]GOV.UKgary mckinnon extradition case home secretarys statementGary McKinnon extradition case: Home Secretary's statement16 Oct 2012 — I believe extradition decisions must not only be fair, they must…

McKinnon’s case was then referred for a decision on possible British charges. In December 2012, the Crown Prosecution Service and Metropolitan Police announced that he would not be prosecuted in the United Kingdom. Investigators concluded that major evidential and practical difficulties, including the location and availability of witnesses and material, meant the prospects of conviction were poor. The outcome left the allegations unresolved by any criminal trial in either country.[theguardian.com]theguardian.comgary mckinnon no uk chargesgary mckinnon no uk charges

What the case changed

The most important legacy of the McKinnon dispute lies in extradition governance rather than UFO history. His campaign became a prominent example in arguments for a statutory forum safeguard. In 2013, Parliament inserted a forum bar into the Extradition Act 2003, enabling courts to prevent extradition where a substantial measure of the relevant conduct occurred in Britain and surrender would not be in the interests of justice. The reform did not guarantee domestic trial, but it gave judges a structured role in deciding a question that had proved politically explosive in McKinnon’s case.[libertyhumanrights.org.uk]libertyhumanrights.org.ukOpen source on libertyhumanrights.org.uk.

The reforms also sought to avoid repeating the procedural route by which his case had returned to successive home secretaries with new human-rights submissions. Ministers argued that fairness required decisions to be explained and tested in court, while preventing extradition cases from becoming indefinitely renewable political campaigns.[GOV.UK]GOV.UKgary mckinnon extradition case home secretarys statementGary McKinnon extradition case: Home Secretary's statement16 Oct 2012 — I believe extradition decisions must not only be fair, they must…

McKinnon’s case did not settle every dispute it exposed. Critics continued to question whether the forum bar was strong enough, particularly because prosecutorial certificates could restrict its operation in some circumstances. Legal commentators have also disagreed over whether the reform was necessary or whether existing human-rights and abuse-of-process principles could already have handled exceptional cases.[UK Parliament Committees]committees.parliament.ukOpen source on parliament.uk.

Its enduring lesson is nevertheless clear. Cross-border computer crime cannot be governed solely by asking where the server stood. A legitimate extradition system must also confront proportionality, contested evidence, the location of the accused’s conduct, access to a defence, pressure created by foreign sentencing practices and the health consequences of removal. McKinnon’s UFO search made his name recognisable, but it was the extradition fight that produced the lasting legal and political impact.

Amazon book picks

Further Reading

Books and field guides related to Why Did Mc Kinnon's Extradition Become So Controversial?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.

Book

The Rule of Law

By Tom Bingham

'A gem of a book ... Inspiring and timely. Everyone should read it' Independent 'The Rule of Law' is a phrase much used but little examin...

See on Amazon

Book

The Secret Barrister

By The Secret Barrister

Writing as S. J. Fleet, The Secret Barrister's first novel, The Cut Throat Trial, is available for pre-order now. ____ An anonymous barri...

See on Amazon

Book

The Hacker and the State

By Ben Buchanan

Rating: 5.0/5 from 18 Google Books ratings

“A must-read...It reveals important truths.” —Vint Cerf, Internet pioneer “One of the finest books on information security published so f...

See on Amazon

Book

Extradition Law: A Practitioner's Guide

By Edward Grange, Rebecca Niblock

First published 2013. Subjects: Law, great britain.

See on Amazon

Browse more on Amazon:The Rule of LawThe Secret BarristerThe Hacker and the State

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

eBay marketplace picks

Marketplace Samples

Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.

Shop location

UsingUSA USA USAUKCanadaAustraliaIreland

Selected fromUFO poster oneBay.co.uk.

Current eBay listing

UFO Over Desert Highway Sci-Fi Abduction Poster Print Framed Canvas Wall Art

GBP 14.99 | Free shippingNewSeller: paradiseposters (99.6% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Current eBay listing

VINTAGE UFO FLYING SAUCERS COMIC ADVERTISING A2 POSTER PRINT

GBP 10.76 | Free shippingNewSeller: andys-prints-uk (99.7% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Current eBay listing

I Want To Believe UFO Poster Giclée Fine Art Heavyweight Print

GBP 21.95 | Free shippingNewSeller: mintprint77 (100.0% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Current eBay listing

Conspiracy Theory Poster Wall Print Gift UFO Aliens Flat Earth Moon Landing

GBP 18.97 | Free shippingNewSeller: forgevalleyprint (98.6% positive)Ships from: GB

View listing on eBay

Browse more oneBay.co.uk

Example items shown for inspiration; availability and pricing can change. Branchoria may earn a commission if you purchase through outbound eBay links.

Endnotes

1. Source: GOV.UK
Title: theresa may statement on gary mckinnon extradition
Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/theresa-may-statement-on-gary-mckinnon-extradition

2. Source: GOV.UK
Title: gary mckinnon extradition case home secretarys statement
Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/gary-mckinnon-extradition-case-home-secretarys-statement

3. Source: publications.parliament.uk
Title: UK Parliament The US-UK Extradition Treaty
Link:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmhaff/644/64403.htm

4. Source: publications.parliament.uk
Title: UK Parliament House of Lords
Link:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd080730/mckinn-1.htm

Published: July 30, 2008

5. Source: publications.parliament.uk
Title: UK Parliament House of Lords
Link:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldextradition/126/12620.htm

6. Source: GOV.UK
Title: latest on [gary mckinnon case]({{ ‘mc-kinnon-case/’ | relative_url }})
Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/latest-on-gary-mckinnon-case

Published: July 2008

7. Source: publications.parliament.uk
Link:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldextradition/126/126.pdf

8. Source: publications.parliament.uk
Title: UK Parliament Home Affairs Committee
Link:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmhaff/644/111220.htm

9. Source: publications.parliament.uk
Link:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmhaff/644/644we05.htm

10. Source: publications.parliament.uk
Link:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111205/debtext/111205-0003.htm

11. Source: publications.parliament.uk
Link:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201011/jtselect/jtrights/uc767-i/uc76701.htm

12. Source: hansard.parliament.uk
Title: Hansard Gary Mc Kinnon (Extradition)
Link:https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2009-12-01/debates/09120144000002/GaryMckinnon%28Extradition%29

13. Source: itv.com
Title: gary mckinnon
Link:https://www.itv.com/news/story/2012-12-14/gary-mckinnon

14. Source: committees.parliament.uk
Link:https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/53127/html/

15. Source: richmond.gov.uk
Title: local plan statement of consultation
Link:https://www.richmond.gov.uk/media/large/local_plan_statement_of_consultation.pdf

16. Source: www2.richmond.gov.uk
Title: sd 011 statement of consultation local plan january 2024
Link:https://www2.richmond.gov.uk/docs/localplan/sd_011_statement_of_consultation_local_plan_january_2024.pdf
Published: january 2024

17. Source: parliament.uk
Link:https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/news-by-year/2012/october/statement-on-gary-mckinnon/

18. Source: publications.parliament.uk
Link:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmhaff/644/644.pdf

19. Source: publications.parliament.uk
Link:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090715/debtext/90715-0010.htm

20. Source: publications.parliament.uk
Link:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111124/halltext/111124h0001.htm

21. Source: publications.parliament.uk
Title: uk Home Affairs Committee
Link:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhaff/1105/09111002.htm

22. Source: publications.parliament.uk
Link:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmpublic/crimeandcourts/130212/am/130212s01.htm

23. Source: publications.parliament.uk
Link:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090715/debtext/90715-0011.htm

24. Source: publications.parliament.uk
Link:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm120918/debtext/120918-0003.htm

25. Source: publications.parliament.uk
Link:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121016/debtext/121016-0001.htm

26. Source: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
Title: public views 3
Link:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7af96ae5274a319e77c120/public-views-3.pdf

27. Source: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
Title: public consultation 7
Link:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7ad76ce5274a34770e77c2/public-consultation-7.pdf

28. Source: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
Title: written reps 17
Link:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a750181ed915d3c7d529a80/written-reps-17.pdf

29. Source: theguardian.com
Title: gary mckinnon hacker aspergers us
Link:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/31/gary-mckinnon-hacker-aspergers-us

30. Source: theguardian.com
Link:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/06/home-secretary-overhauls-extradition-laws

31. Source: theguardian.com
Title: gary mckinnon no uk charges
Link:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/14/gary-mckinnon-no-uk-charges

32. Source: libertyhumanrights.org.uk
Link:https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Libertys-Report-on-Home-Secretary-Discretion-and-the-Forum-Bar-in-Extradition-2013.pdf

33. Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
Title: UK Human Rights Blog The Forum Bar: it does exist
Link:https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2018/02/09/the-forum-bar-it-does-exist-bruno-min/

34. Source: theguardian.com
Link:https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/aug/28/hacking.security

35. Source: theguardian.com
Title: gary mckinnon feels set free
Link:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/17/gary-mckinnon-feels-set-free

36. Source: theguardian.com
Link:https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2012/oct/16/gary-mckinnon-extradition-theresa-may-video

37. Source: theguardian.com
Title: gary mckinnon mps backing extradition
Link:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/06/gary-mckinnon-mps-backing-extradition

38. Source: theguardian.com
Title: gary mckinnon timeline extradition
Link:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/16/gary-mckinnon-timeline-extradition

39. Source: theguardian.com
Title: gary mckinnon medical report us extradition
Link:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/12/gary-mckinnon-medical-report-us-extradition

40. Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
Title: the increasing role of human rights law in extradition and deportation cases
Link:https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/05/25/the-increasing-role-of-human-rights-law-in-extradition-and-deportation-cases/

41. Source: libertyhumanrights.org.uk
Link:https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Libertys-submission-to-the-JCHR-extradition-inquiry-Jan-2011.pdf

42. Source: Wikipedia
Title: Gary Mc Kinnon
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon

Additional References

43. Source: youtube.com
Title: Hacking for UFOs and fighting for his life. Who is Gary Mc Kinnon? | Nord VPN
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OImdnvQx7sQ

44. Source: youtube.com
Title: UK hacker’s extradition to US blocked
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4Js8DF80HY

45. Source: youtube.com
Title: Gary Mc Kinnon wins extradition battle
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4lecD44F5E

46. Source: sciencedirect.com
Link:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361372308701210

47. Source: youtube.com
Title: British Hacker Escapes Trial after hacking Military and NASA Computers
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWitx2r3Pmk

48. Source: independent.co.uk
Title: computer hacker gary mckinnon will face no further action says cps 8417875
Link:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/computer-hacker-gary-mckinnon-will-face-no-further-action-says-cps-8417875.html

49. Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5jtyps4oaY

50. Source: csmonitor.com
Title: Britain nixes extradition of NASA hacker Gary Mc Kinnon to US
Link:https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2012/1016/Britain-nixes-extradition-of-NASA-hacker-Gary-McKinnon-to-US

51. Source: thetimes.com
Title: hacker gary mckinnon faces no uk criminal action gjnw293j207
Link:https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/hacker-gary-mckinnon-faces-no-uk-criminal-action-gjnw293j207

52. Source: journals.law.unc.edu
Title: u k ends 10 year extradition battle of hacker gary mckinnon
Link:https://journals.law.unc.edu/ncjolt/blogs/u-k-ends-10-year-extradition-battle-of-hacker-gary-mckinnon/