Leaders: Gary McKinnon must be spared threat of further action

WE FREQUENTLY use this space to criticise politicians when they get decisions wrong, as they often do. For consistency we should, therefore, praise politicians when they make the correct decision, as Home Secretary Theresa May has done in blocking the extradition to the United States of computer hacker Gary McKinnon.

We might note in passing that Mrs May did so under European human rights legislation to which she, and the Conservative Party, are opposed, but that does not distract from the fact that, whatever the mechanism used, the Home Secretary has done the right thing, for several reasons.

The first must be that it was obvious to anyone who looked at the evidence that Mr McKinnon, who has Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism, was in no fit mental state to face being taken to across the Atlantic to be tried.

Although we cannot be certain of the claim – thankfully it will not be put to the test – the argument that Mr McKinnon would be been plunged into suicidal depression if he had been extradited had the ring of truth to it and must have weighed heavily on Mrs May’s thinking.

However, there are wider reasons why the Home Secretary was correct in her decision. Even if her formal judgment was based Mr McKinnon being “seriously ill”, there are bigger issues at stake in relation to this case.

Mrs May is said to believe that the 2003 deal with the US, supposed to speed up extradition and remove political delays or interference, works well. However, she wants to introduce a clause which allows extradition to be blocked if someone could be tried in the UK. As a matter of urgency the government should do so.

Furthermore, it does no harm for the Westminster administration to show that it does not simply do whatever is asked of it by the US, even if America is one of our oldest and most loyal allies.

However, beyond the legalities and the politics of the ruling, we must not forget there is a human story – that of Mr McKinnon, an obviously fragile individual, who has lived under this terrifying cloud for a decade.

It is simply unpardonable that this process, with the traumatic toll that has taken on Mr McKinnon and his family, has dragged on for so long. Justice should be equitable and it should be swift. It has been neither in this case.

With that in mind, there should be no question of Mr McKinnon facing prosecution in the UK for his alleged crime. Even if he were technically guilty, and that is open to question, he has already served a heavy “sentence” for a crime he has not even been convicted of.

Yes, Mrs May deserves praise for her decision, but the most important person in this saga is Gary McKinnon. The Director of Public Prosecutions should look at his case with the utmost urgency and dismiss it, allowing Mr McKinnon to rebuild his life free from the threat of any further court action.

SNP cannot avoid Fox’s questions

Of ALL the issues that make up the complex mosaic of deliberations over independence it is defence, and specifically the SNP’s long-standing commitment to unilateral nuclear disarmament, which stirs the greatest passions. That is why Friday’s debate at the Nationalists’ conference in Perth – when the leadership will seek to win backing for a change of policy to embrace the Nato military alliance – is likely to be an emotionally charged event.

SNP defence spokesman Angus Robertson, supported by most of the party’s senior figures, will argue that Nato membership is vital to present a credible defence policy to voters in the independence referendum. Today Mr Robertson wins support from an unlikely quarter, with former Conservative defence secretary Dr Liam Fox stating in this newspaper that to leave Nato would be like leaving the pub before it is your turn to buy a round.

Although Mr Robertson is unlikely to welcome the intervention – indeed, it might strengthen the hand of his opponents inside the party – he cannot avoid the questions Dr Fox poses. A Unionist Dr Fox may be, but that does not negate the points he makes, including stating, correctly, that nuclear weapons – which the SNP says Scotland would eschew in a new constitution – are at the heart of Nato’s defence strategy.

He is also right to question, among other things, the SNP’s timetable for withdrawing Britain’s nuclear deterrent from Scotland, a subject Mr Robertson has not been specific on. It has been a theme here to call on the SNP to give detailed answers, before the referendum, on how it would run a separate Scotland. Dr Fox has added more questions to a lengthening list.