McKinnon's lawyer, Karen Todner, has told the BBC that she will
ask the Home Secretary to intervene in the case. The Home Office
has previously approved his extradition and has today said that it
has no further statutory role in the case.
McKinnon has admitted hacking into computers belonging to NASA
and the US military in 2001 and 2002 though he has disputed US
prosecutors' claims that he caused $700,000-worth of damage.
He has fought a long legal battle to face trial in the UK
because that is where he was when the alleged crimes were committed
and not in the US. US prosecutors previously threatened Mckinnon
with up to 70 years in jail and said he could be tried under
anti-terrorism laws.
His case has been ruled on by the High Court, the Court of
Appeal and the House of Lords. After five Law Lords unanimously
rejected his claim that US plea bargaining undermined his human
rights last month, McKinnon asked the European Court of Human
Rights (ECHR) to intervene.
Yesterday it refused to block his extradition.
"The appeal is lost," Karen Todner of Kaim Todner solicitors
told news agency Reuters. "He is completely distraught, all of them
are, his family, his girlfriend." She said he would probably be
extradited within three weeks.
Mckinnon used a dial-up internet account to break into US
military networks. He said that he used a very basic hacking tool
that scanned the network for blank passwords to gain entry into the
systems.
"When you look at the fact that my method for gaining entry was
scanning for blank passwords, technically you could say that there
was no security to begin with," he told
OUT-LAW Radio in 2006.
He says that he was told by UK authorities that he faced nothing
more serious than community service, but that once US prosecutors
were involved the seriousness of potential charges escalated.
"For it to be extraditable under their computer laws in America
you have to have caused $5,000 worth of damage and lo and behold
they say that every computer I was on I caused exactly $5,000 worth
of damage so it is patently a falsely-structured argument,"
McKinnon told OUT-LAW.
On appeal McKinnon had argued that US authorities' plea
bargaining had undermined his human rights because the gulf between
what he was offered if he did not oppose extradition and what he
was threatened with if he did was so large.
The Law Lords, though, said that the gulf between those would
have to be larger for the appeal to succeed, and that while it
would be a problem if judges engaged in that kind of plea
bargaining, it was less of a problem if engaged in by
prosecutors.
