Gary McKinnon’s case is only the latest in a string of high-profile extraditions involving British citizens to the United States. It comes after the NatWest Three and Ian Norris, former chief executive of Morgan Crucible, fought extradition battles through the courts – in the latter case successfully. Both highlighted the threat to the British business community from what is seen as the “long arm” of US jurisdiction.

The arrangements have been criticised, as it is much easier for the US to secure Britons for prosecution than it is for Britain to secure suspects from the US. Eoin O’Shea, white-collar crime partner with Lawrence Graham, a City law firm, said that the Extradition Act 2003, introduced after 9/11 to ease the transfer of terrorist suspects, required Britain to show “probable cause” for a prosecution. “This is not exactly the same as prima facie evidence but it is very close to it. The US, however, only has to give very basic information, alleging an offence.” He said that an informal agreement had been drawn up to try to clarify which cases should be dealt with by which jurisdiction, to appease concerns. However, it was not binding. “In my view, the unfair imbalance between the two countries still exists and UK citizens are at greater risk of being extradited to the States than the other way round.”

Colin Passmore, a senior litigation partner with Simmons & Simmons, added that equally as worrying as the US/UK extradition arrangements were those between Britain and Europe, under which suspects can be transferred on paper via the fast-track European arrest warrant. A record 1,000 requests came from European countries last year, many for minor offences. “I don’t think people have realised the full impact of this yet,” Mr Passmore said.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure