DOJ-OGR-00002228(1).jpg
728 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
728 KB
Summary
This legal document, page 3 of a court filing from December 23, 2020, argues against the availability of certain bars to the extradition of Ms. Maxwell. It posits that a finding of oppression is unlikely given she absconded from the United States, and that human rights claims under the ECHR are also improbable. The document further clarifies that the Secretary of State's power to refuse extradition is strictly limited by the Extradition Act 2003 and is not a matter of general discretion.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms Maxwell | Subject of extradition proceedings |
Mentioned throughout as the individual whose extradition is being contested.
|
| extradition judge | Judge |
The judicial authority required to make findings on whether extradition would be oppressive and who would review evid...
|
| Secretary of State | Government official |
A government official whose power to refuse extradition is discussed, clarifying it is not a general discretion but l...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| ECHR | Convention/Legal Framework |
Mentioned in relation to Article 8 (right to family life) as a potential but unlikely bar to extradition for Ms Maxwell.
|
| Government | Government agency |
Mentioned in a footnote as having submitted a Memorandum related to the case.
|
| International Criminal Court | International court |
Mentioned in a footnote as part of a potential bar to extradition concerning an earlier transfer to the United Kingdom.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Extradition proceedings concerning Ms Maxwell.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The country from which Ms Maxwell had absconded.
|
|
|
Mentioned in a footnote regarding potential bars to extradition related to earlier extradition or transfer to the UK.
|
Relationships (2)
The document describes the judge's role in making findings regarding Ms Maxwell's extradition and notes that a breach of undertakings by Ms Maxwell would cause the judge to view her evidence with scepticism.
The document outlines the Secretary of State's limited, not general, discretion to refuse Ms Maxwell's extradition based on specific grounds in the Extradition Act 2003.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,449 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 103-2 Filed 12/23/20 Page 3 of 4
document to seek to resist her extradition, bail would almost certainly be refused for the duration of the extradition proceedings.
(b) The majority of the bars that might be relied upon by Ms Maxwell³ require the extradition judge to make a finding that extradition would be oppressive. Quite apart from the other factors rendering those bars unavailable to Ms Maxwell, as set out in the Opinion, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which a finding of oppression could be made in relation to the serious charges faced by Ms Maxwell in circumstances where she had absconded from the United States and was contesting her extradition in breach of good faith undertakings relied upon to secure her bail. Similar considerations apply to the balancing exercise required in assessing whether extradition would breach the right to family life under Article 8 of the ECHR. The remaining bars to extradition and human rights bars are unlikely to be available to Ms Maxwell for the reasons given in the Opinion⁴.
(c) A breach of the undertakings in the waiver of extradition would be highly likely to be viewed as a sign of bad faith and cause the extradition judge to treat any evidence given by Ms Maxwell with scepticism.
4. Second, it is not correct that section 93 of the Extradition Act 2003 (‘the 2003 Act’) confers a general discretion on the Secretary of State to refuse extradition if a case is sent to her by the extradition judge⁵. The ambit of the power in section 93 is described at paragraph 8 of the Opinion. The Secretary of State may only refuse extradition on the grounds provided for in that section, namely: (a) if an applicable bar to extradition⁶ is found to exist; (b) the Secretary of State is informed that the request has been withdrawn⁷; (c) there is a competing claim for extradition from
³ Opinion, para. 26. Those bars are passage of time; forum; and mental and physical condition.
⁴ Opinion, paras. 27-29 and 36-37.
⁵ As appears to be submitted by the Government at p.19 of the Memorandum.
⁶ The bars to extradition that the Secretary of State must consider are: (a) the death penalty (s. 94); (b) speciality (s. 95); (c) earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from another territory (s. 96); and (d) earlier transfer to the United Kingdom from the International Criminal Court (s. 96A).
⁷ Extradition Act 2003, s. 93(4)(a).
⁴ Opinion, paras. 27-29 and 36-37.
⁵ As appears to be submitted by the Government at p.19 of the Memorandum.
⁶ The bars to extradition that the Secretary of State must consider are: (a) the death penalty (s. 94); (b) speciality (s. 95); (c) earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from another territory (s. 96); and (d) earlier transfer to the United Kingdom from the International Criminal Court (s. 96A).
⁷ Extradition Act 2003, s. 93(4)(a).
DOJ-OGR-00002228
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document