Accused Brit hacker Lauri Love will NOT be extradited to America Accused hacker Lauri Love will not be extradited to United States to stand trial, the High Court of England and Wales ruled today. In a judgment handed down by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, upheld both of Love's grounds for appealing against District Judge Nina Tempia's 2016 order for him to be extradited to …
"My experience is that many judgements are capricious - especially in family law."
Unless you are a barrister, solicitor, judge etc. I presume this experience of your own particular case. Whilst I have great sympathy, my own experience was different: indeed the only people I could rely upon were the judges, whilst the ex's solicitors (and others, e.g. CAFCASS) tried to stitch me up. There were many judgments in that 10 years, but most seemed pretty sensible from my perspective, with a couple of outliers.
Are either of us really in a position to determine whether 'many' judgments are, or are not, capricious?
Are either of us really in a position to determine whether 'many' judgments are, or are not, capricious?
I have, for some 20 years, helped people (men & women) who are caught up in the nightmare that is family law [as thanks to those who helped me]. Sometimes the courts, etc, get it right, but often they do not. I have seen hundreds of cases:
* they can drag on for years - only benefits the solicitors who earn fees. Some solicitors seem to act to slow things down
* CAFCASS reports that do not describe what is really happening, but reflect the prejudices of the officer. Once case where an officer & her boss made up evidence just before a hearing (being unaware that they were being observed)
* courts officials who: loose paper-work, ignore orders made by their own court; refuse to obey practice directions
* judges that make orders and then will not enforce them (generally if a woman breaks it, but woe betide a man who does)
* judges who kick cases into the long grass rather than deal with it
* innumerable false allegations of violence or sexual misconduct against dads [in about half the cases that I see]. The courts take at face value, chuck dad out of the house, kids no contact with him (even in a contact centre), mother thus gets legal aid. By the time that it is shown false some 9 months later: mother has the house, the kids don't want to see dad, ... This happens time and again - how come the judges do not see through it ?
I could go on ...
I had 6 years of Social Services blaming us and the way we parented, through the courts, whilst my child had three seperate diagnosis of ADHD from experts, for the judge to say openly (Colleridge J) that no matter what we produced, he had to take Islington Social Services statements as fact as they were experts.
Justice? we've heard about it somewhere
Indeed. Your own experience gives strong anecdotal evidence that we do not have "one of the world's finest legal systems".
"Over ten years", "the ex's solicitors and others eg CAFCASS trying to stitch you up." The latter almost certainly without any censure from the court or regulating bodies whatsoever. To be repeated over and over again, also in every other case during that ten year period.
All too frequently, a Family Court Order is not worth the paper it is printed on, the "obstructing parent", almost invariably the mother, acts with utter immunity, a virtual two fingers up at the judge.
What a fine system indeed.
Any one person's experience could give strong anecdotal evidence that the Anglo system has room for improvement - lots of room, even - but it wouldn't say anything about the relative merits vs other national systems.
Therefore, it fails to refute the claim that it's "one of the world's finest". It merely says "this bar may be lower than you think".
re ukgnome
Utter bullshit.
The Judgment is clear and simple : The forum bar is engaged, preventing his extradition.
So, why on earth did the District Judge rule AGAINST that very fact and decide he could quite perfectly, and legally, be extradited.
If we actually had one of the world's finest legal systems it would have been resolved within the hour at the first hearing. And what will become of the District Judge that got it SO badly wrong? Yeah, nothing untoward.
There are so many instances of plain wrong, or as a earlier poster writes capricious, judgements that the system is either corrupt or inept, or both.
Take the family courts, circa 2009 an all party parliamentary committee ruled that CAFCASS, (the de facto judge in family cases), weren't fit for purpose. Couple years back the head of that division of law stated, the gist of, that the results from his department were unsatisfactory, and only a few months ago, some no doubt very highly rewarded deputy director of CAFCASS stated that "in groundbreaking awareness, we've only just become of the significant harm cause to children by parental alienation." ( and our own deliberate and biased work of the last 20+ years)
I added the last bit in parenthesese to make her statement true and complete.
Given the astounding number of cases that go up before the various courts, and the fact that miscarriages of justice tend to get high-profile reporting, I'd say that the error rate is vanishingly small.
That's no comfort if you happen to be wrongfully convicted of something, but I reckon juries are more error-prone than Judges in any event. Just walk through any town centre to see the sort of ordinary people who might be called upon to serve on a jury. At least judges are trained, experienced experts, and despite what the likes of Slithy Gove might have you think, an expert on a subject is preferable to a novice.
I'm not saying Judges don't make mistakes, or Magistrates, or expert panels, but all-in-all, our justice system is pretty spot-on. If anything, its failing is that the court system is as cash-starved as any other part of our public services by ideological austerity handed down from government.
This will not conclude the matter I am afraid.
Let us imagine for a second that USA prosecution will stop this nonsense and submit the correct paperwork for a UK court case or transfer jurisdiction to UK. Not a chance. None of this will happen as they will do anything not to open the floodgates here. Their entire legal doctrine is based around the idea that USA law has ultimate primacy over everything including international law and USA international obligations.
So there will be no UK court case. He will have to live the rest of his life in the UK without travelling anywhere to avoid extradition case in another country. He will need to suspect anyone coming within a foot of him in the street of having a rag with chloroform and a car parked around the corner to take him to a "private" Cessna parked at a nearby airport. Everywhere worldwide. UK included.
"He will have to live the rest of his life in the UK without travelling anywhere"
Oh no what a hardship. Given his various conditions I'm pretty sure he can cope with this.
"He will need to suspect anyone coming within a foot of him in the street of having a rag with chloroform and a car parked around the corner to take him to a "private" Cessna parked at a nearby airport."
Umm no. After a high profile case like this there is no way the US would do this because it would look absolutely awful, even if they denied they did it no-one would believe it. They also wouldn't try and have him killed for the same reasons.
They also couldn't have him be mysteriously found unconscious in the USA, taken to hospital and then arrested. If they did the UK government would be obliged to request the return of one of their citizens, who had clearly been attacked by unknown parties, in order to ensure his well being.
If they'd wanted to take him out of the UK illicitly this would have to have been done before he was ever arrested the the extradition case made the news. If he'd mysteriously turned up in the USA then, without the failed extradition request, then they would have stood a chance of keeping him without the political fallout.
Really though, they should just do what common sense and the law says, and bring evidence to the UK for a trial to take place here.
Such a rendition would cause a lot of diplomatic troubles. A tragic hit and run with no traces, on the other hand, is more discrete. The operative term is "wet job" and the Wild West didn't really end in parts of the US. Simply the presence of a secret court passing secret judgement that are even illegal to reveal where the court proceedings is with a single part only, is not quite what I would expect from a Western country. Look up "FISA" if you doubt me. And of course we have some secret trials in the rest of the West but the court itself is no secret.
You might want to feed this one into Google Translate: https://www.aftenposten.no/verden/i/pWXbX/Ville-kidnappe-Krekar-brmed-spesialstyrker
@ Phil W
"They also wouldn't try and have him killed..."
The very fact that this comment occurred to you (one with which I totally agree, having just watched "The Trials of Henry Kissinger") is a demonstration of the reason that this judgement is correct. The US justice system is a worldwide joke, and the election of The Orange Baboon has accelerated America's plunge into total decline. Love would have had no chance at all in that hysterical idiocracy.
You may well be right that there will be no UK court case and the case will remain open in the USA. I don't think they'd consider him important enough to hijack forcibly though, or even try extradition very hard (maybe from some countries) - I can't see Finland extraditing him for example. But travel to the USA would be out of bounds for him.
"He will need to suspect anyone coming within a foot of him in the street of having a rag with chloroform and a car parked around the corner to take him to a "private" Cessna parked at a nearby airport. Everywhere worldwide. UK included."
Depends on whether the US want us to tear up the treaty that allows lawful extradition. If they commit crimes of assault and kidnap on UK soil because they lose an extradition case in the UK courts, this would make any future UK extradition legal cases and the treaty that requires these moot, regardless of whether these concern a silly hacker or a genuine terrorist.
"So there will be no UK court case."
Why not? The US must have provided sufficient prima facie evidence for the extradition. The CPS could then use that as the basis for a prosecution here. It would then be up to the US to respond to the resulting witness summonses, provide additional evidence or even withdraw the complaint. Their choice. If they don't enable the CPS to produce a credible case in court he gets found not guilty.
@Doctor Syntax
"The US must have provided sufficient prima facie evidence for the extradition. The CPS could then use that as the basis for a prosecution here."
The test for evidence for extradition is only that the evidence must show reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime has been committed. However the CPS require evidence that provides a reasonable probability of a solid conviction in order to proceed, so the evidence the US provided for the extradition may well not be sufficient to begin criminal proceedings.
>> The US must have provided sufficient prima facie evidence for the extradition
This is where the whole UK/US extradition system fails the equivalence test.
If we're extraditing from the US, then yes, of course we need to present evidence of "probable cause" - as we should
If they're trying to extradite from here, then ALL they need to do is to SAY that they have evidence sufficient to generate "reasonable suspicion" (without presenting it), and in the absence of unusual circumstances (as, fortunately, in this case), that is enough for us to bend over, and take it from behind.
Every group/committee that has looked at this agrees that the asymmetry exists, except for the whitewash done by Theresa May's "helpful" judge Baker.
If they're trying to extradite from here, then ALL they need to do is to SAY that they have evidence sufficient to generate "reasonable suspicion" (without presenting it), and in the absence of unusual circumstances (as, fortunately, in this case), that is enough for us to bend over, and take it from behind.
The later Register article has a link to the judgement. Paragraph 9 outlines the evidence which seems to point to there being a prima facie case with some of the evidence coming from the UK police:
In October 2013, the Federal Bureau of Investigation asked the National Crime
Agency [“NCA”] for assistance in its investigation, which led the NCA to begin its
own investigation. Its purpose was to “gather evidence with a view to mounting a
potential prosecution in the UK, whilst being equally aware of the US investigation,
should material relevant to their investigation become apparent....” The investigation
obtained evidence linking Mr Love to the hacking offences. On 25 October 2013, the
NCA executed a search warrant at Mr Love’s parents’ house. He lived there with
them. This is explained in the witness statement of Mr Brown of the NCA dated 29
March 2016, made in connection with proceedings which related to the return of
property taken during the search. One of Mr Love’s computers was logged on to an
online chat room using the nickname “nsh”. A preliminary review of some of his
computers revealed that some of the data stolen during unauthorised access was on his
computers, and these intrusions had been discussed in online chats. Mr Love was
arrested on suspicion for offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, made no
comment in interview and was released on bail.
Reading through the rest of the judgement it seems clear that a UK prosecution would be a possibility and this seems to be a factor in the decision. See paragraph 126:
The CPS must now bend its endeavours to his prosecution, with the assistance to be
expected from the authorities in the United States, recognising the gravity of the
allegations in this case, and the harm done to the victims. As we have pointed out, the
CPS did not intervene to say that prosecution in England was inappropriate. If proven,
these are serious offences indeed.
In other words CPS & the US are being told to put up or shut up.
"He will need to suspect anyone coming within a foot of him in the street of having a rag with chloroform and a car parked around the corner to take him to a "private" Cessna parked at a nearby airport. Everywhere worldwide. UK included."
I very much doubt that. The US has too much to lose by doing something so brash as to kidnap a UK citizen, on UK soil, for the sake of a failed extradition request. And just look at another prominent extradition request they lost in recent times; the Gary McKinnon case. That was a far more embarrassing hack for the US than this one, and he's still very much alive and kicking (he's now an SEO consultant, apparently).
@ac
This will not conclude the matter I am afraid.
I would have gone further: they kipnap him and kill him in Poland or Turkey ... US' usual modus operandi ... the guy has then "vanished" ... if they trial him in the US, that will attract attention ... Stalinist unpersonification is way better...
Some people really live in TellyTubbyLand (thinks of downvoters).
PS: I am amazed at the decision, I think this is the first time in history that a UK judgement has prevented extradition to the US, but I might be wrong. I know it is not over, but still ... a landmark!
Paris, cause she likes TellyTubbies, they're as naïve as her and the downvoters ...
"I am amazed at the decision, I think this is the first time in history that a UK judgement has prevented extradition to the US, but I might be wrong."
You are wrong. Garry McKinnon's case had various similarities to this one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#Extradition_proceedings
"Wow, I do believe you Brits are thinking the Mission Impossible movies are actually real life. Get a grip."
I remember visiting Italy for a holiday in 2005. The big story on the news there was that someone had been snatched off the streets in Milan by the CIA, whisked away in a private plane, and ended up in a foreign jurisdiction with "relaxed" attitudes in the area of interrogation techniques - all without the approval of the Italian authorities. The Italian government was unhappy about this, to say the very least. I can't confirm whether there was chloroform involved, but that case does seem to tick the rest of the boxes.
The reason I still remember this was because it was being given wall to wall media coverage in Italy, yet the BBC (and other news agencies) didn't mention anything about the story, even when you specifically went looking in the Europe section of their news website. It taught me a lot about the "free" press in the UK.
The actual facts were a little different: the Italian government secretly approved the "rendition" which was performed with the help of Italian secret agents.
Just, because no one said anything to them in advance, police and prosecutors investigated as it was a kidnapping and identified the involved people - and arrested the Italian agents, while the CIA ones were already abroad, but warrants were emitted.
At the trial, the Italian government (both Prodi and Berlusconi) used the "state secret" formula and never confirmed nor denied the government approved the operation (actually, the government approved it, but, in pure Italian style could not confirm it for fear or terrorist reprisals... a "Pulcinella's secret").
So the agents were prosecuted and got some sentences, including the US ones. A very ugly story...
" it was being given wall to wall media coverage in Italy, yet the BBC (and other news agencies) didn't mention anything about the story, even when you specifically went looking in the Europe section of their news website. It taught me a lot about the "free" press in the UK."
I read a lot, esp. political news, from many different sites including the BBC.
This case has piqued my interest - and is in the "never heard of it" category.
Not a ripple here in the swamp.
Actually, they really do do things like that. Usually with Mexican drug lords of course or with Nigerian/Yemenese/Afghan warlords, but the CIA which is the extra-territorial organization that is tasked with that job does in fact make such extraordinary renditions at about two per month these days. From UK territory and from European territory. It doesn't matter! They've done it before and will do it again. In Mr. Lauri's case, a specific type of bench warrant will be issued giving the right of private U.S.-based bounty hunters to go and get him and bring him back to U.S. territory for a reward. Alive rather than dead of course!
If you've ever watched Dog the Bounty Hunter television show, he went into Mexico to bring back a wanted U.S. fugitive and when you get the promise of lots of cash from a federal agency to bring back a wanted suspect, Mr. Lauri has to be careful in the UK that U.S. bounty hunters aren't hunting for him day and night to collect that reward! While Dog was actually indicted by Mexican authorities, he eventually got his way and made it back to the USA more than a few dollars richer from the collected bounty.
While the US government absolutely will play by the UK rules, that doesn't mean the private-party U.S. bounty hunters will! He's going back sooner or later if the indictments he receives from the U.S. warrant a large enough reward for the bounty hunters to play their game of cat and mouse in the UK and Europe!
The system of justice is very, very different over the pond. The UK common sense civil rules of law simply don't apply in U.S. legal cases. The American public and its government simply doesn't want or care for UK-like common sense. They would rather see people hang than have a sensible justice system over there. Americans are very interested in sending 16 year olds to prison for life for stealing some candy bars under their "Three Strikes and You're Out Laws"! So it won't be any less lenient when it comes to Mr. Lauri. With him, it's all about having enough money to pay for a good criminal lawyer that will determine whether or not you spend decades, if not the rest of your life, in a U.S. prison!
Fine, so when does he stand trial here?
I presume once the USA has made a case to the Supreme Court in the UK and lost. Then they can press the NCCU for full investigation and due UK legal process. Unfortunately for the USA such an offence under the Computer Misuse Act (1990) would be deemed 'unauthorised access to computer material' and subject to a maximum 12 months, but for a 1st offence it would far more likely to be a probation order, working in a library for 150 hours helping pensioners get online and a modest fine.
"Unfortunately for the USA such an offence under the Computer Misuse Act (1990) would be deemed 'unauthorised access to computer material' and subject to a maximum 12 months"
Actually they could press for 3ZA as it concerned the DoD, FBI and US Army
Section 3ZA- Unauthorised acts causing, or creating risk of, serious damage.
Section 3ZA is primarily aimed at those who seek to attack the critical national infrastructure (Depending on the motives of the perpetrator, terrorist legislation may be appropriate.)
2(d) damage to the national security of any country.
"Indictment only: 14 years and/ or a fine unless the offence caused or created a significant risk of serious damage to human welfare or national security, as defined in section 3 (a) and (b), in which case a person guilty of the offence is liable to imprisonment for life and / or a fine."
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
