Alan Johnson: Home Secretary Theresa May took the easy way out He hacked into some of the most sensitive US defence infrastructure just after the horror of 9/11, increasing that country's vulnerability to attack. It's said that he was looking for UFOs but the message he admits to leaving criticised America for its foreign policy and warned that he would strike again. Few would question the severity of the charges against him, least of all the Home Secretary who reiterated their seriousness in her statement. Another argument is that his trial should take place in the UK and that the location (forum) should have been tested in open court. In Gary McKinnon's case it was. In July 2009 one of our most senior High Court Judges, Lord Justice Burnton listened to all the arguments and said that it would be "manifestly unsatisfactory in the extreme" for McKinnon to be tried anywhere other than the US, setting out his reasoning in the most explicit terms. He refused to allow any appeal to a Judicial Review. The charges were serious, the involvement of Mr McKinnon was beyond question and the High Court ruled in the strongest terms that the trial should take place in America. The one decision for the Home Secretary was whether sending him for trial to the US would breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights - that no-one should be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. After the District Court, the High Court and the House of Lords had ruled that extradition should go ahead Gary McKinnon was diagnosed for the first time as suffering from Aspergers. This diagnosis led to the appeal process recommencing. By the time it reached the High Court again, Lord Justice Burnton was able to consider all the medical evidence submitted by McKinnon's team, including the prospect of him committing suicide. The judgement in July 2009 points out that there was a very high bar to clear for any defendant to be able to quote illness as sufficient reason for them not to be sent to another country on the grounds that it would be equal to torture or would constitute inhuman or degrading treatment. He quoted the case law, including a failed asylum seeker whose medical condition was such that she could only access the drugs that would save her life in this country rather than the less developed country she was being returned to. Her condition was not considered to breach Article 3. Justice Burnton said that Gary McKinnon's case "did not approach Article 3 severity." He also pointed to the sophisticated medical treatment available in the US which would be placed at Mr McKinnon's disposal. A central argument of Mr McKinnon's supporters was that, if sent to the US, he would serve a long sentence in a so-called "supermax" jail. Even his legal team withdrew the "supermax " element as there was no prospect of him serving time in such an institution. Furthermore, by the time Theresa May made her decision this week, the US had even agreed that any custodial sentence would be served in the UK. Theresa May saw the same medical evidence, submitted by McKinnon's defence team that I saw. It was submitted after the 2009 High Court decision but was in essence the same. Mr McKinnon was asked to submit himself to an independent medical assessment but refused. I accept there could have been some further evidence submitted but it could not possibly have cleared the current high bar on Article 3 extraditions. It is important to keep the bar where it is because there are many attempts to prevent extradition by reference to a medical condition. Abu Hamza has rightly been extradited. The situation of his co-accused has yet to be determined by the European Court. He is currently in Broadmoor suffering from bi-polar disorder and other serious mental illnesses. There are those supporters of Gary McKinnon like my good friend David Davis, who argue that the Extradition Treaty is unbalanced. I don't agree but if the Home Secretary shared that view and was therefore stopping all extraditions on that basis it would at least be understandable. But the Home Secretary supports the Treaty and deported a man with practically the same medical conditions as McKinnon very recently. It's my understanding that, as recently as July Mrs May wrote to the US authorities stating that there were no legal or medical grounds on which she could stop McKinnon's extradition. She also set out the ramifications for national security if she lowered the Article 3 bar. The US was entitled to request and expect extradition. Theresa May has not reached a brave decision, she's taken the easy way out. The Home Secretary is there to uphold the law; to put justice before popularity. This was an appalling decision irrespective of how many plaudits it receives. Alan Johnson was Home Secretary from 2009-10