Why is it moot?
With the US Department of Justice starting extradition proceedings to force Lynch out of the UK and into the hands of American prosecutors, there is a possibility that the entire High Court proceedings may become what lawyers call a "moot point" – or, as you and I might say, "irrelevant".
I'm not clear why this should be the case. If the Judge finds against HPE then why would we look favourably on a extradition request for something our courts have already found against? Alternatively why would we consider and acquiesce to an extradition request when our court hasn't completed consideration of the case?
Personally I'd think long and hard before turning Harold Shipman over to US "Justice" as it stands at the moment, never mind someone in a case like this where the facts are so clouded in technicality and doubt, on both sides.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
