Branchoria UFO Hackers UFO Hackers

Documented cyber intrusions, disputed discoveries, and the evidence gaps between them.

Within Extradition

Where Did Mc Kinnon's Alleged Crime Really Happen?

US authorities argued that the location of the targeted military systems and alleged harm mattered more than where McKinnon sat at his computer.

27 sources 3 graphics
Preview for Where Did Mc Kinnon's Alleged Crime Really Happen?

On this page

  • Why the United States claimed the natural venue
  • How digital offences cross territorial borders
  • Which British connections supported a home trial

Introduction

One of the central legal disputes in Gary McKinnon’s extradition case was whether a British citizen who allegedly carried out computer intrusions from his home in London should instead be tried in the United States. American prosecutors argued that the decisive factor was not where McKinnon sat at his keyboard, but where the targeted computer systems, the alleged victims and the claimed harm were located. British courts largely accepted that this created a legitimate basis for US criminal jurisdiction, even though every alleged keystroke originated in England.[UK Parliament]publications.parliament.ukUK Parliament House of LordsUK ParliamentHouse of Lords - Mckinnon V Government of The United States of America and AnotherJuly 30, 2008…Published: July 30, 2008

Jurisdiction illustration 1

The jurisdictional debate became a leading example of how cybercrime challenges traditional ideas of territorial criminal law. A single internet connection can cross multiple countries in seconds, meaning that the location of the suspect, the computer infrastructure, the victims and the financial or operational consequences may all lie in different jurisdictions.

Why the United States claimed the natural venue

The United States’ case rested on the principle that the alleged offences were directed at American government property and produced their principal effects inside the United States.

According to the indictments, McKinnon allegedly gained unauthorised access to 97 computers belonging to the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Department of Defense and NASA between 2001 and 2002. Those computers were physically located in the United States, administered by US agencies and protected by American criminal law. Prosecutors alleged that the intrusions disrupted military systems, required extensive recovery work and caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses.[UK Parliament]publications.parliament.ukUK Parliament House of LordsUK ParliamentHouse of Lords - Mckinnon V Government of The United States of America and AnotherJuly 30, 2008…Published: July 30, 2008

From the American perspective:

  • the protected computer systems were American property;
  • the alleged victims were US government departments;
  • the claimed operational disruption occurred in the United States;
  • the financial costs of repairing the systems were incurred there.

In criminal law, this reflects the long-recognised “effects” principle: a state may prosecute conduct occurring abroad when its principal harmful consequences are felt within that state’s territory. Cybercrime frequently relies on this approach because the attacker and the damaged systems are often in different countries.[Crown Prosecution Service]cps.gov.ukCrown Prosecution Service Jurisdiction | The Crown Prosecution ServiceCrown Prosecution Service Jurisdiction | The Crown Prosecution Service

Gary McKinnon wins extradition battle

Channel: The Telegraph

Open on YouTube

How digital offences cross territorial borders

McKinnon’s case illustrated why internet offences rarely fit neatly within traditional territorial boundaries.

Unlike a conventional burglary, where both offender and victim occupy the same physical location, a computer intrusion typically involves several geographically distinct elements:

  • the attacker’s computer;
  • internet infrastructure spanning multiple countries;
  • the target servers;
  • system administrators responding to the intrusion;
  • the organisations suffering any operational or financial loss.

Each of these locations may provide some legal basis for jurisdiction.

For that reason, international cybercrime investigations frequently involve concurrent jurisdiction, meaning that more than one country has lawful authority to prosecute the same conduct. Prosecutors must then determine which forum is most appropriate rather than asking which country has exclusive authority. Modern UK prosecution guidance recognises exactly this problem, directing prosecutors to consider where the harm occurred, where witnesses and evidence are located, and which jurisdiction can most effectively conduct proceedings.[Crown Prosecution Service]cps.gov.ukCrown Prosecution Service Jurisdiction | The Crown Prosecution ServiceCrown Prosecution Service Jurisdiction | The Crown Prosecution Service

McKinnon’s London location therefore did not prevent the United States from asserting jurisdiction; it simply meant that Britain also had a potential interest in the case.

Jurisdiction illustration 2

The litigation was often portrayed publicly as a dispute over treaty fairness, but British courts generally accepted that the United States possessed a valid jurisdictional claim.

The House of Lords noted that the extradition request alleged unauthorised access from London into US Government computers and treated the offences as having substantial connections to the United States. The courts rejected arguments that the American prosecution lacked a proper territorial basis simply because McKinnon remained physically in Britain throughout the alleged conduct.[UK Parliament]publications.parliament.ukUK Parliament House of LordsUK ParliamentHouse of Lords - Mckinnon V Government of The United States of America and AnotherJuly 30, 2008…Published: July 30, 2008

Judges distinguished between two separate questions:

  • Could the United States lawfully claim jurisdiction? They concluded that it could.
  • Should extradition nevertheless be refused for other legal reasons? That required consideration of separate issues such as human rights, proportionality and, ultimately, McKinnon’s medical condition.

The jurisdictional issue was therefore largely resolved in favour of the United States long before extradition was eventually halted for unrelated reasons.

Computer hacker Gary McKinnon loses extradition appeals

Channel: Onlooker

Open on YouTube

Which British connections supported a home trial

Although American jurisdiction was recognised, McKinnon’s supporters argued that Britain also had a compelling claim to prosecute.

Several factors pointed towards a domestic prosecution:

  • McKinnon lived permanently in London.
  • His computer equipment was located in England.
  • British police executed the search warrants and seized the evidence.
  • Initial interviews were conducted by British authorities.
  • Any defence witnesses concerning his personal circumstances were largely British.
  • The alleged conduct began entirely within the United Kingdom.[UK Parliament]publications.parliament.ukUK Parliament House of LordsUK ParliamentHouse of Lords - Mckinnon V Government of The United States of America and AnotherJuly 30, 2008…Published: July 30, 2008

Supporters also argued that British computer misuse legislation criminalised unauthorised access and therefore provided an available legal framework for prosecution without extradition.

These arguments focused not on denying American jurisdiction but on asserting that Britain was an equally appropriate—or more appropriate—forum because the defendant and much of the investigative evidence were already within UK control.

Jurisdiction illustration 3

Why the forum dispute remained controversial

At the time of McKinnon’s proceedings, English extradition law did not contain the later statutory “forum bar” allowing courts to refuse extradition because the United Kingdom was clearly the better place for trial.

This absence became one of the most criticised features of the case. Critics argued that judges could not fully weigh competing jurisdictions when substantial conduct had occurred in Britain. Following wider reviews of extradition law, Parliament later introduced forum-bar provisions into the Extradition Act 2003. These require courts, in appropriate cases, to consider matters such as:

  • where most of the loss or intended harm occurred;
  • the interests of victims;
  • the availability of evidence;
  • delay;
  • the defendant’s connections with the United Kingdom; and
  • whether justice would be better served by a domestic prosecution.[Crown Prosecution Service]cps.gov.ukCrown Prosecution Service Jurisdiction | The Crown Prosecution ServiceCrown Prosecution Service Jurisdiction | The Crown Prosecution Service

Those reforms were influenced by broader concerns raised by cases including McKinnon’s, although they did not apply to his own extradition proceedings.

Gary McKinnon will not face prosecution in the UK

Channel: ITV News

Open on YouTube

What the jurisdiction debate demonstrated

McKinnon’s case showed that, in cybercrime, physical location alone rarely determines where a prosecution belongs. A person may remain entirely within one country while allegedly committing offences whose intended targets, victims and consequences lie elsewhere.

The United States’ jurisdiction prevailed because its case centred on American government networks, alleged disruption to US agencies and losses said to have been suffered within the United States. Britain’s competing connection arose from the defendant’s residence and the place from which the alleged intrusions originated. The resulting overlap illustrated the reality of concurrent jurisdiction in modern cybercrime, where multiple countries may possess legitimate legal authority and the central question becomes which forum is most appropriate rather than which has an exclusive claim.[UK Parliament]publications.parliament.ukUK Parliament House of LordsUK ParliamentHouse of Lords - Mckinnon V Government of The United States of America and AnotherJuly 30, 2008…Published: July 30, 2008

Amazon book picks

Further Reading

Books and field guides related to Where Did Mc Kinnon's Alleged Crime Really Happen?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.

BookCover for The Rule of Law

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
BookCover for The Secret Barrister

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
Browse more on Amazon:The Rule of LawThe Secret BarristerTextbook on International Human Rights

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.

UsingUSA

Selected fromUFO poster oneBay.co.uk.

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

Source snippet

UK ParliamentHouse of Lords - Mckinnon V Government of The United States of America and AnotherJuly 30, 2008...

Published: July 30, 2008

2. Source: committees.parliament.uk
Title: This process is to assist extradition and domestic prosecutors who have c
Link:https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/54037/html/

Source snippet

parliament.ukEXL0075 - Evidence on Extradition LawOctober 16, 2014 — CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE – SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE (EXL0075) CPS INT...

Published: October 16, 2014

3. Source: hansard.parliament.uk
Title: uk Extradition
Link:https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2012-10-16/debates/12101643000907/Extradition

4. Source: hansard.parliament.uk
Title: uk Extradition
Link:https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2012-10-16/debates/12101642000005/Extradition

5. Source: publications.parliament.uk
Title: uk House of Commons
Link:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmhaff/644/64403.htm

6. Source: hansard.parliament.uk
Title: uk Attorney-General
Link:https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2011-11-15/debates/11111559000010/Attorney-General

7. Source: hansard.parliament.uk
Title: uk Commons Chamber
Link:https://hansard.parliament.uk/html/Commons/2009-12-01/CommonsChamber

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

9. Source: publications.parliament.uk
Link:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091201/debtext/91201-0004.htm

10. Source: edm.parliament.uk
Title: uk GAR Y MCKINNON EXTRADITION
Link:https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/37511/gary-mckinnon-extradition

11. Source: edm.parliament.uk
Title: extradition of gary mckinnon
Link:https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/36777/extradition-of-gary-mckinnon

12. Source: publications.parliament.uk
Title: uk House of Lords
Link:https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldextradition/126/12607.htm

13. Source: cps.gov.uk
Title: Crown Prosecution Service Jurisdiction | The Crown Prosecution Service
Link:https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/jurisdiction

14. Source: cps.gov.uk
Title: Referrals, approvals and notifications | The Crown Prosecution Service
Link:https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/referrals-approvals-and-notifications

Source snippet

April 24, 2026 — * DLS – notification required, prior to any decision being communicated * CCP * DCCP * SDCP * Press Office – notificatio...

Published: April 24, 2026

15. Source: cps.gov.uk
Link:https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/protocol-regarding-exercise-criminal-jurisdiction-england-and-wales-between-director

Source snippet

r of Service Prosecutions (updated February 2026) | The Crown Prosecution ServiceOctober 25, 2023 — PROTOCOL REGARDING THE EXERCISE OF CR...

Published: October 25, 2023

16. Source: GOV.UK
Title: joint prosecution protocol
Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/joint-prosecution-protocol

Source snippet

Prosecution Protocol - England and Wales - GOV.UKOctober 25, 2023 — JOINT PROSECUTION PROTOCOL - ENGLAND AND WALES Protocol regarding the...

Published: October 25, 2023

17. Source: GOV.UK
Title: www.gov.uk Joint Prosecution Protocol Consultation
Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/joint-prosecution-protocol-consultation

Source snippet

Prosecution Protocol Consultation - GOV.UKFebruary 16, 2023 — Consultation outcome JOINT PROSECUTION PROTOCOL CONSULTATION From: Ministry...

Published: February 16, 2023

18. Source: cps.gov.uk
Link:https://www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/extradition-uk

Source snippet

From the UK | The Crown Prosecution ServiceOctober 5, 2022 — EXTRADITION - FROM THE UK 05 October 2022 minor updates: 20 Feb 2023; 1 May...

Published: October 5, 2022

19. Source: GOV.UK
Title: www.gov.uk Gary Mc Kinnon extradition case: Home Secretary’s statement
Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/gary-mckinnon-extradition-case-home-secretarys-statement

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

Additional References

21. Source: youtube.com
Title: Computer hacker Gary Mc Kinnon loses extradition appeals
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GFCcaWUghc

Source snippet

British 'UFO' hacker loses extradition battle...

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

Source snippet

Gary McKinnon will not face prosecution in the UK...

23. Source: itv.com
Title: ‘CPS have declared decision not to prosecute Mc Kinnon’
Link:https://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-12-14/cps-have-declared-decision-not-to-prosecute-mckinnon/

24. Source: youtube.com
Title: British ‘UFO’ hacker loses extradition battle
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKxQ7XVntIA

Source snippet

UK hacker's extradition to US blocked...

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

Source snippet

Gary McKinnon wins extradition battle...

26. Source: forums.theregister.com
Title: mckinnon no prosecution decision
Link:https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2012/12/14/mckinnon_no_prosecution_decision/

27. Source: youtube.com
Title: Gary Mc Kinnon will not face prosecution in the UK
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viLcoe_xPMU