DOJ-OGR-00001207.jpg
645 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
645 KB
Summary
This legal document analyzes the potential bars to the extradition of Ms. Maxwell from the UK to the US. It argues that bars related to oppression or human rights (Article 8 of the ECHR) are unlikely to be available to her, especially given that she absconded from the United States. The document also clarifies that the Secretary of State's power to refuse extradition under the Extradition Act 2003 is not discretionary but is limited to specific statutory grounds.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms Maxwell | Subject of extradition proceedings |
Mentioned throughout the document as the person whose extradition is being discussed, who has absconded from the Unit...
|
| extradition judge | Judge |
Mentioned as the judicial figure responsible for making findings on whether extradition would be oppressive and for v...
|
| Secretary of State | Government official |
Mentioned in the context of their power under section 93 of the Extradition Act 2003 to refuse extradition under spec...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| ECHR | Legal framework (European Convention on Human Rights) |
Mentioned in relation to Article 8, concerning the right to family life, as a potential bar to extradition.
|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned in a footnote as having submitted a Memorandum.
|
| International Criminal Court | Court |
Mentioned in a footnote as a potential source of an earlier transfer to the United Kingdom, which would be a bar to e...
|
Timeline (2 events)
Analysis of the legal arguments and bars to the extradition of Ms Maxwell.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the country from which Ms Maxwell had absconded.
|
|
|
Mentioned in a footnote in the context of earlier extradition or transfer to the UK from another territory.
|
Relationships (2)
The document describes the judge's role in evaluating Ms Maxwell's case, including making findings on oppression and treating her evidence with scepticism due to a perceived breach of undertakings.
The document outlines the limited power of the Secretary of State to refuse Ms Maxwell's extradition, which is contingent on specific legal grounds rather than general discretion.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,449 characters)
Case 20-cr-00330-AJN Document 103-21 Filed 05/23/20 Page 35 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-00001207
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document