Aside from both cases being extremely political, the reasons that both were/are fighting extradition are quite different (mental illness vs. political machinations). Extradition to EU countries is also often viewed differently to the US by the public and politicians, as we both fall under EU law and it is perhaps more like transferring a suspect between states in the US.

In neither case is our (UK) government acting in a fair, impartial and democratic way. /sweeping statement

Presuming that you're talking about Assange, there are hugely different considerations when Assange isn't a British citizen.

Ah yes, I stand corrected.

It doesn't actually affect the decisions too much in these particular cases. The cases for and against extradition are invariably fought over issues of human rights, and the law is quite clear that British and EU statutes apply equally to everyone regardless of nationality, at least in considering most of these issues. While the person is in the UK/EU, the national governments cannot use their nationality to overrule any HR arguments against extradition, unless the law specifically prescribes a difference course of action based on nationality, which must not unduly remove any of their human rights.

I can think of a number of differences between the cases (I'm not in a position to say which, if any, factored into the decisions of either the courts or the home secretary):

* McKinnon is a British citizen, Assange is not.

* If proven, Assange's crimes were in Sweden. IMO, the jurisdiction(s) McKinnon should be subject to is less clear - he was in the UK, but the targeted network was in the US.

* McKinnon was fighting extradition due to mental illness and protection of his human rights; Assange was fighting over EAW procedures/political extradition etc. (I can't remember the exact legal argument put forward).

* Assange is to be extradited with the EU. Very broadly speaking, this means that the legal systems and human rights protections are more closely aligned (for example, both the UK and Sweden are subject to EU law, and both have ratified the ECHR). This influences both political and public perception of the extradition.

* Various other political considerations (e.g. Assange's association with WikiLeaks).

* The crimes of which they are accused - I suspect that accessing the US government network is perceived by the public to be largely a victimless crime (in that it is not possible to say a specific person was harmed by the actions), but sexual assault obviously is not.

As far as I am aware, the courts reached effectively the same decision in both cases. The final decision is extradite or not is taken by the Home Secretary, so is to some extent a political decision.

The court made the same decision in both cases. Home Secretary did not make any decision (in favor or against) Assange extradition: Who in the political branches in the UK has the power to overrule the court in regard to Assange.