I agree with the principle that trial should be where the crime is committed but this isn't a clear cut case for that criteria and there is in my view a strong

I agree with the principle that trial should be where the crime is committed but this isn't a clear cut case for that criteria and there is in my view a strong argument that the crime took place in the US (the computers he misused were there and he knew it) even though Gary was in the UK. That doesn't necessarily mean that Gary should have been extradited but the grounds for not doing so should be different. Health is the stated reason and I don't intend to argue with it not knowing his precise medical details. I would say that for this case that either venue is reasonable. For the Richard O'Dwyer case and also the now complete Natwest bankers case there is from what I understand little reason to see the US as the appropriate jurisdiction. On the recent terrorist cases I haven't read much but it sounded as if in at least one case there were accusations of setting up training camps in the US making that reasonable cause for extradition but that perhaps for one or more of the others the US link was significantly weaker.