got off the tube and ran along the road. When we walked inside the court the session was just beginning. It was a dark, depressing room with a large painting on the wall and that familiar musty smell hanging in the air.
Despite the huge press presence, we managed to get space to sit down on one of the hard, uncomfortable benches.
The Law Lords were on stage, exuding an air of superiority while deciding on virtual life-or-death decisions to be passed on British subjects, in this case on my son.
It was as though time had stood still again and we were backin a Dickensian world reminiscent of the hanging judges of years gone by. Although Britain thankfully no longer has the death penalty, Gary was facing what he believed was a sentence worse than death.
Who are these people, these Law Lords smiling and acting mildly amused, as though it’s some kind of game? How dare they think that it’s fine to send one of their own countrymen to be dragged like a slave to an alien land he’s never set foot in, and for a ludicrous number of years? This was no laughing matter.
Had Gary murdered anyone? No!
Had Gary raped anyone? No!
Had Gary sold secrets to anyone? No!
Had Gary made any money from anything he did? No!
Had Gary hurt anyone? No!
Did Gary believe in conspiracy theories? Yes!
Did Gary post a peace protest in a cyber-note accusing the US government of state-sponsored terrorism? Yes!
Had Gary left cyber-notes telling them their security was crap? Yes!
Had Gary embarrassed them? Yes! – and therein lies the crux of the matter.
• • •
The court was in session and David Pannick QC started delivering Gary’s case.
Maybe I got that wrong … he didn’t sound as though he was acting for Gary.
‘
Is
he Gary’s QC, Karen?’
‘Yes.’
‘That’s scary.’
‘I know what you mean,’ said Wilson.
The more I heard, the more I could feel my heart sinking.
‘Is this the barrister everyone raved about?’
‘I believe so,’ said Wilson solemnly.
Why do the Law Lords keep referring to Gary serving a possible ten-year sentence in the US – surely they know it’s ten years
per count
?
Lord Phillips must have read my thoughts. ‘Was it ten years per count? Is that where the sixty years came from?’ he boomed. I was thankful that at least one of the Law Lords finally seemed to acknowledge this.
It was Lord Brown’s turn now. Oh no! Lord Brown was trying to equate Gary’s computer misuse with aviation crime. Good God, Gary had never been charged with any such thing. Was this an ingenious attempt by Lord Brown to try to justify the sixty-year sentence suggested by the US?
How could a judge, whose job it is to be independent, strive to make a case to justify a life sentence for a British computer nerd who had never hurt anyone… if that’s what he was trying to do?
‘Didn’t Lord Brown work with the Americans at GCHQ at one time?’
‘I think he did,’ said Wilson, tugging on his beard.
‘Right. That might explain it.’
That Lord Brown could basically suggest without any evidence whatsoever that Gary’s computer misuse ‘may’ equate with crimes against shipping or aviation, when even the CPS had been given no evidence of any such thing, was morally wrong as far as I was concerned.
I mean, anyone could suggest that anyone was guilty of anything but when that person is in a court of law is it right that the judge deciding whether or not you should be extradited should publicly announce suggestions of serious crime with noevidence to back those suggestions up? Especially when, due to the very nature of the extradition treaty, the accused is not even allowed to defend himself in a British court against any allegations? Besides, the CPS had admitted that they had received no evidence from the US, only hearsay.
In addition to this, Gary had no lawyer present during his first police interview in March 2002. After his second police interview in late 2002, the lawyer representing Gary had written
Despite the huge press presence, we managed to get space to sit down on one of the hard, uncomfortable benches.
The Law Lords were on stage, exuding an air of superiority while deciding on virtual life-or-death decisions to be passed on British subjects, in this case on my son.
It was as though time had stood still again and we were backin a Dickensian world reminiscent of the hanging judges of years gone by. Although Britain thankfully no longer has the death penalty, Gary was facing what he believed was a sentence worse than death.
Who are these people, these Law Lords smiling and acting mildly amused, as though it’s some kind of game? How dare they think that it’s fine to send one of their own countrymen to be dragged like a slave to an alien land he’s never set foot in, and for a ludicrous number of years? This was no laughing matter.
Had Gary murdered anyone? No!
Had Gary raped anyone? No!
Had Gary sold secrets to anyone? No!
Had Gary made any money from anything he did? No!
Had Gary hurt anyone? No!
Did Gary believe in conspiracy theories? Yes!
Did Gary post a peace protest in a cyber-note accusing the US government of state-sponsored terrorism? Yes!
Had Gary left cyber-notes telling them their security was crap? Yes!
Had Gary embarrassed them? Yes! – and therein lies the crux of the matter.
• • •
The court was in session and David Pannick QC started delivering Gary’s case.
Maybe I got that wrong … he didn’t sound as though he was acting for Gary.
‘
Is
he Gary’s QC, Karen?’
‘Yes.’
‘That’s scary.’
‘I know what you mean,’ said Wilson.
The more I heard, the more I could feel my heart sinking.
‘Is this the barrister everyone raved about?’
‘I believe so,’ said Wilson solemnly.
Why do the Law Lords keep referring to Gary serving a possible ten-year sentence in the US – surely they know it’s ten years
per count
?
Lord Phillips must have read my thoughts. ‘Was it ten years per count? Is that where the sixty years came from?’ he boomed. I was thankful that at least one of the Law Lords finally seemed to acknowledge this.
It was Lord Brown’s turn now. Oh no! Lord Brown was trying to equate Gary’s computer misuse with aviation crime. Good God, Gary had never been charged with any such thing. Was this an ingenious attempt by Lord Brown to try to justify the sixty-year sentence suggested by the US?
How could a judge, whose job it is to be independent, strive to make a case to justify a life sentence for a British computer nerd who had never hurt anyone… if that’s what he was trying to do?
‘Didn’t Lord Brown work with the Americans at GCHQ at one time?’
‘I think he did,’ said Wilson, tugging on his beard.
‘Right. That might explain it.’
That Lord Brown could basically suggest without any evidence whatsoever that Gary’s computer misuse ‘may’ equate with crimes against shipping or aviation, when even the CPS had been given no evidence of any such thing, was morally wrong as far as I was concerned.
I mean, anyone could suggest that anyone was guilty of anything but when that person is in a court of law is it right that the judge deciding whether or not you should be extradited should publicly announce suggestions of serious crime with noevidence to back those suggestions up? Especially when, due to the very nature of the extradition treaty, the accused is not even allowed to defend himself in a British court against any allegations? Besides, the CPS had admitted that they had received no evidence from the US, only hearsay.
In addition to this, Gary had no lawyer present during his first police interview in March 2002. After his second police interview in late 2002, the lawyer representing Gary had written
Similar Books
