USA v Christopher Taylor
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 December 2020 |
| Court | Magistrates' Court |
Before the Appropriate Judge sitting at Westminster Magistrates’ Court
Between: GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Requesting State
-and-
CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR
Requested Person
JUDGMENT
Date of Full Hearing: 26-28 October 2020
Date Judgement delivered: 7 December 2020
ISSUES
- s.83A EA 2003 – Forum;
- s.87 EA 2003 – Article 3 (risk of suicide of both RP and his wife Wendy Taylor);
- s.87 EA 2003 – Article 8 (family life – impact on RP and his wife);
- s.91 EA 2003 – RP’s physical or mental condition.
INDEX
Family circumstances and connections ................................................................................................ 9
Family circumtances and connections – my findings......................................................................... 16
Autism ................................................................................................................................................... 18
Autism – my findings ........................................................................................................................... 22
Suicide .................................................................................................................................................. 23
Suicide – my findings as to RP’s risk .................................................................................................. 27
Suicide - my findings as to Wendy Taylor’s risk ................................................................................. 29
Suicide prevention – arrangements for safeguarding in transit to US – my findings ....................... 30
Suicide prevention - arrangements for safeguarding in US custody ................................................. 31
Suicide prevention - arrangements for safeguarding RP in US custody – my findings .................... 34
Delay in the trial process – my findings .............................................................................................. 35
Forum ................................................................................................................................................... 36
Forum – my evaluation of the specified matters ................................................................................. 43
Forum – my conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 52
Article 3 - prison conditions ................................................................................................................. 53
Article 3 – my conlusions ..................................................................................................................... 55
Article 8 ................................................................................................................................................ 55
Article 8 – the “balance sheet” ............................................................................................................ 58
2
Article 8 – my conclusions ................................................................................................................... 60
RP’s physical or mental condition - s.91 EA 2003.............................................................................. 62
RP’s physical condition and autism – my conclusions ....................................................................... 63
RP’s mental condition & suicide – my conclusions ........................................................................... 65
My conclusions summmarised & my decision .................................................................................... 68
PRELIMINARIES
1.
This extradition request is subject to the provisions of Parts 2, 4 & 5 Extradition Act 2003
(“EA 2003”).
Definitions
RS – Requesting State – Government of the United States of America
RP - Requested Person – Christopher Taylor
FI – Further Information provided by RS
Judges Powers
2.
By s.77 EA 2003 at the extradition hearing the appropriate judge has the same powers (as
nearly as may be) as a magistrates' court would have if the proceedings were the summary trial
of an information against the person whose extradition is requested.
Burden & Standard of proof
3.
By s.206 EA 2003, save where otherwise provided for by EA 2003, the appropriate judge
must treat any question arising as to the burden or standard of proof by applying any enactment
or rule of law that would apply if the proceedings were proceedings for an offence as if RP
were accused of an offence and as if RS were the prosecutor of that offence.
Representation
4.
RS was represented by Mr. Sternberg.
5.
RP was represented by Mr. Cooper QC.
BACKGROUND
6.
RS requests RP’s extradition to stand trial on an indictment (superseding an earlier one)
returned on 15 January 2019 by a grand jury sitting in the Northern District Court of Georgia
3
in the United States of America. The indictment was signed, and an arrest warrant issued, by
the Clerk to the District Court on 16 January 2019.
7.
The request for RP’s extradition was certified on behalf of the Secretary of State under
section 70 EA 2003 on 18 June 2019. The certificate states that the request for extradition is
valid and has been made in the approved way.
8.
The indictment contains three counts –
Count 1: Wire fraud, in violation of 118 U.S. Code, Section 1343, maximum penalty
20 years imprisonment;
Count 2: Computer fraud, in violation of 18 U.S. Code, Sections 1030(a)(2)(C) and
(c)(2)(B)(ii) carrying a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment; and
Count 3: Computer fraud in violation of 18 U.S. Code, Sections 1030(a)(5)(A), 1030(b)
and 1030(c)(4)(B)(i) carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.
9.
It is conceded that these are by definition extradition offences (see below).
10.
Mr. Sternberg suggested (and Mr. Cooper did not take issue with that suggestion) that the
equivalent offences in the UK would include –
a. Fraud by False Representation contrary to section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006,
punishable on conviction with imprisonment for up to 10 years;
b. Voyeurism contrary to Section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, punishable on
conviction with imprisonment for up to 2 years;
c. Unauthorised Access to Computer Material contrary to section 1 of the Computer
Misuse Act 1990, punishable on conditions with imprisonment for up to 2 years;
d. Unauthorised Acts with Intent to Impair; or with Recklessness as to Impairing the
Operation of a Computer, contrary to section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990
punishable on conviction with imprisonment for up to 10 years.
11.
The conduct alleged against RP (and accepted by him) arose in the following
circumstances. RP, through online gaming, developed an interest in computers. He
experimented with computers, building them from scratch. He became interested in malware
and how to build it and distribute it.
To continue reading
Request your trial