‘Keep our geeks!’: Protesters descend on High Court as new Lord Chief Justice hears Lauri Love extradition case

By on

Should suspected hacker, who has Asperger’s and depression, be sent to the USA for trial?

The Lord Chief Justice’s courtroom at the Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ) was jam-packed with spectators in Lauri Love T-shirts this morning, as the judiciary’s head honcho considered whether the suspected hacker should be extradited to the United States of America for trial on 13 criminal charges

The sheer number of “Trump can’t get me” and “Keep our geeks” signs outside the iconic court building set the tone for what is far from a run-of-the-mill High Court case. One protester told me the case was so important he’d “effectively come out of retirement” to work on it.

Less frantic but just as busy inside, the Lord Chief Justice, Ian Burnett, sat alongside Mr Justice Duncan Ouseley to hear the strikingly titled Love v Government of the United States of America. Representing Love (pictured below) was Edward Fitzgerald QC, from Doughty Street Chambers, who argued that the decision to send his client across the Atlantic, made by a Westminster Magistrates’ Court district judge, was wrong.

Lauri Love

Love — who is accused of a series of cyber attacks against US websites and computer systems and denies all wrongdoing — suffers from long-standing Asperger’s syndrome, eczema, asthma and depression. In the words of his father, Love, from Suffolk, “fell apart” while he was at sixth form, returning home after dropping out of the University of Nottingham a “mental and physical wreck”. Old case papers, tracing the claimant’s time at a new university, continue: “During Mr Love’s second year at Glasgow University his mental health deteriorated so badly his parents had to collect him and bring him home. He has told his parents that if it were not for them he would have killed himself.”

The latest comments from across Legal Cheek

Thirty-two-year-old Love’s mental health is of continuing concern to the court. Fitzgerald conceded there’s a “severe risk of suicide” if his client is extradited. This would have terrible effects not just for Love and his loved ones; Fitzgerald said:

“If he commits suicide, they’ll be no trial and no satisfaction for the victims.”

The court at first instance had concluded that while Love does have both physical and mental health issues, District Judge Nina Tempia was satisfied there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure he gets the treatment he needs. The judgment reads:

“I have found the medical facilities in the US prison estate on arrival and during any sentence if he is convicted available to him are such that I can be satisfied his needs will be comprehensively met by the US authorities.”

Rather eerily, the submissions later included a long discussion about Love’s chances of and ability to kill himself in an American prison. Fitzgerald robustly argued to Ouseley — who heard Julian Assange’s extradition case — and Burnett that Love would “quite easily” be able to commit suicide in a general population prison or while in solitary confinement. Being placed on suicide watch would make it more difficult for him, but there’s no guarantee he’d be observed at all times.

Even if the court could be made content the claimant would not commit suicide in the destination state, Fitzgerald argued extradition of itself could breach Love’s Article 3 (prohibition against torture and degrading treatment) right. The two likely consequences of extradition, Fitzgerald said, are: suicide, or the serious deterioration of Love’s mental and physical health. Of course, there’s also the potential imposition of a “sky high” prison sentence; 99 years has been mentioned several times. Fitzgerald said:

“This is exceptional hardship. It’s a case involving a very vulnerable person with a whole host of conditions that have been found to exist by the district judge on indisputable evidence.”

It is right his case is heard on home soil not only as “a matter of humanity”, but law and precedent too, Love’s legal team argues.

Time and time again, Fitzgerald argued, UK citizens accused of causing “spectacular damage” to the US through hacking have been tried here, so: “We are not asking you to take a trip of Mars” in deciding Love should be tried in the UK.

One such case in our minds today was Gary McKinnon, a Scottish man who in 2002 was accused of a hacking into nearly 100 US military and NASA computers. He claimed he was looking for evidence of UFOs.

Like Love, he had been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome. Theresa May, then Home Secretary, blocked his extradition to the US. “McKinnon is accused of serious crimes,” she concluded, “but there is also no doubt that he is seriously ill.”

Will a similar decision be reached in Love’s case? The hearing continues until tomorrow.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub



Send him to face trial, and be done with it.



Why, is it boring you?



Yes, as is the ridiculous furore by people who know nothing about the legal area in question. What this has to do with our MPs, for example, is beyond me. Why do they see fit to comment upon it? I don’t see them down at Middleofnowhere Magistrates’ Court picketing domestic prosecutions of the allegedly infirm.


Not Amused

“our courts should judge our citizens and punish them according to our values”

This is why I hate public law. It is not law.

That statement is not a legal statement. It is a purely political statement. You might agree with it (I happen to), or you might not. But quite regardless these are political questions. The time for debating them or discussing them is therefore when the UK government signs the extradition treaty.

I did criticise the treaty at the time. I appreciate that I lost that debate, it was felt that a good relationship with the US was worth the cost.

Having lost that debate, what role should there really be for the Courts to start meddling years later? How is that conceivably helpful?

Are the Judges going to balance the views of their constituents? They don’t have any. Are the Judges going to take an informed view of UK/US relations or of long-term interests for the UK? Are they in any way qualified to do so?

Public law is just a political misuse of the Courts to achieve your own personal ends and it should be treated with extreme caution and be heavily restricted. Yet year on year it grows.


Pladimir Vutin

Hear hear comrade. I too believe that individuals should not be allowed to enforce their legal rights against the state or do anything about suicidal disabled people being sent to a rotting American prison. Disgusting that anyone sees fit to challenge the mighty government in its benevolent wisdom. How dare anyone seek to stop an extradition under any circumstances.


Not Amused

It is the charm of the Left and their willingness to rise above personal insult which has done them so well electorally for the last 40 years.


Pladimir Vutin

Agreed comrade, these stupid snowflakes should shut up and do what I tell them. Disgusting that they should want a disabled person treated humanely when clearly they should have no protection from the law. Who do they think they are?



If you are prepared to do the crime, you should be prepared to do the time, disabled or not.


A silly rhyme doesn’t make everything fine.

Some people want to make disabled people suffer more, and then pretend it’s ‘justice.’ It’s closet social darwinism. Yuck.


The rhyme is incidental. The adage itself holds.


SHocker of a case



Do they not have E45 cream in the states?



e45 cream does nothing for treatment-resistant eczema that causes intense skin infections



Unfortunately, disabled people are the most likely to fall victim to false equality.

Real equality is when people are treated differently in order to bring about a more equal or fair outcome e.g. provided with a wheel chair ramp instead of steps like everybody else.

False equality is when people are all treated the same irrespective of their circumstances, causing an unequal or unfair outcome.

I hope they don’t make this mistake in this case.



The US has a psychotically disproportionate sentencing regime, designed to pressure people into pleading guilty for an agreed lighter sentence.

It’s not the 1/3 off for a guilty plea that we have here, it’s more like we’ll agree to a plea and 15 years in jail or face 99 years to serve without parole if convicted after trial.

Good luck getting top quality representation too unless you have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spare- inexperienced and overworked public defenders are not a patch on our Legally Aided independent counsel and Solicitors.




Then don’t hack US websites, perhaps? #trailoverthere









Surely we should be keeping him here and employing him to tackle the Russian hackers.
Indeed, let’s recruit the cyber geeks protesting outside too. We could create an elite counter-hacking unit within the blink of an eye and get The Donald onside by agreeing to counter Fake News for him using this unit. Let’s get creative.



Let’s just have a closer look at our priorities! And what we ” say” Our country stands for! The rest is just bloviating egos. If you’re just another one of those, go away until you have something pertinent to add to the conversation. For a change, try being pertinent, informed, intelligent and even compassionate. BTW, it’s a Jasus thing-Matthew 7:12.


Comments are closed.

Related Stories