DOJ-OGR-00002101.jpg

771 KB

Extraction Summary

2
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court filing / legal brief (exhibit)
File Size: 771 KB
Summary

This document is page 6 of 29 from a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 14, 2020. It outlines the legal framework and procedural hurdles for appealing extradition in the United Kingdom under the Extradition Act 2003, noting the specific roles of the Secretary of State, High Court, and Supreme Court. The text emphasizes the rarity of successful appeals to the Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights in extradition cases.

People (2)

Name Role Context
Secretary of State Government Official (UK)
Authority figure who orders extradition or receives case referrals from a judge.
Norris Litigant (Case Citation)
Cited in footnote 34 (Norris v Government of the United States of America) as a precedent for Supreme Court considera...

Organizations (5)

Name Type Context
High Court
court that hears extradition appeals.
Supreme Court
Highest court of appeal, noted as rarely hearing extradition cases.
European Court of Human Rights
Venue for seeking injunctions against extradition.
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Indicated by the footer 'DOJ-OGR-00002101'.
Government of the United States of America
Cited as a party in the Norris case law reference.

Timeline (2 events)

2010
Norris v Government of the United States of America judgment
UK Supreme Court
Norris US Government
2020-12-14
Document Filed
Court Filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN)

Locations (2)

Location Context
Jurisdiction where these laws apply (implied by 'Secretary of State', 'High Court', 'Extradition Act 2003').
Mentioned in relation to the 'Norris' case citation and 'US extradition case'.

Relationships (1)

Secretary of State Legal/Procedural High Court
Decisions by the Secretary of State can be appealed to the High Court.

Key Quotes (3)

"In practice, such appeals are extremely rare; in the past ten years, only one US extradition case has been considered by the Supreme Court"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00002101.jpg
Quote #1
"A requested person may appeal the decision of the appropriate judge to send the case to the Secretary of State"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00002101.jpg
Quote #2
"Such applications, which must be based on an alleged violation of a right under the ECHR, are also very rare."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00002101.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,687 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-21 Filed 12/14/20 Page 6 of 29
9. A requested person may appeal the decision of the appropriate judge to send the case to the Secretary of State, the decision of the Secretary of State to order extradition, or both²⁸, except in consent cases where the person is deemed to have waived their rights of appeal²⁹. Where the requested person is discharged at the extradition hearing or by the Secretary of State, the requesting government may appeal the decision to discharge³⁰. Extradition appeals are heard by the High Court. An appeal may be brought on a question of law or fact and may not be brought unless the court grants leave to appeal which requires the Appellant to establish that there is a reasonably arguable ground of appeal³¹.
10. Either party may appeal a decision of the High Court to the Supreme Court, but only where the High Court has certified that the decision involves a point of law of general public importance, and either the High Court or the Supreme Court concludes that the point is one that ought to be considered by the Supreme Court³². Where leave is granted, the Supreme Court may either grant the appeal, or dismiss it³³. In practice, such appeals are extremely rare; in the past ten years, only one US extradition case has been considered by the Supreme Court³⁴.
11. In some cases, a requested person may apply to the European Court of Human Rights and seek an injunction to prevent the extradition from taking place until the application is determined³⁵. Such applications, which must be based on an alleged violation of a right under the ECHR³⁶, are also very rare.
_________________________________________________________________
²⁶ Extradition Act 2003, s. 93(4).
²⁷ The exceptions are: (a) that the Secretary of State is informed that the request has been withdrawn (s. 93(4)(a)); (b) there is a competing claim for extradition from another state (ss. 93(4)(b), 126(2) and 179(2)); (c) the person has been granted asylum or humanitarian protection in the United Kingdom (s. 93(4)(c) and 6(A)); or (d) extradition would be against the interests of UK national security (s. 208).
²⁸ Extradition Act 2003, ss.103 and 108.
²⁹ Extradition Act 2003, ss. 103(2) and 108(2).
³⁰ Extradition Act 2003, ss. 105 and 110.
³¹ Extradition Act 2003, ss. 103(4), 105(4), 108(3) and 110(4) and Criminal Procedure Rules (‘CrimPR’), r. 50.17(4)(b).
³² Extradition Act 2003, s. 114(4).
³³ Extradition Act 2003, s. 115(1).
³⁴ Norris v Government of the United States of America [2010] 2 AC 487.
³⁵ ECHR, Art. 34 and European Court of Human Rights, Rules of the Court, r. 39.
³⁶ ECHR, Art. 34.
1922623.1
5
DOJ-OGR-00002101

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document