DOJ-OGR-00002109.jpg
863 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal memorandum / court filing exhibit
File Size:
863 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal memorandum filed on December 14, 2020, analyzing the legal viability of Ghislaine Maxwell resisting extradition from the UK to the US. It specifically argues that she would fail to invoke Article 6 (fair trial) or Article 8 (private and family life) of the ECHR to stop extradition. The conclusion begins to state that if she absconded to the UK in breach of US bail, she would likely be denied bail there.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms Maxwell | Defendant/Subject of Extradition Analysis |
The document analyzes the likelihood of her successfully resisting extradition from the UK to the US.
|
| Miao | Legal Precedent |
Referenced in footnote 93 regarding assurances in extradition cases.
|
| Ahmad | Legal Precedent |
Referenced in footnote 94 (Ahmad v United Kingdom).
|
| Othman | Legal Precedent |
Referenced in footnotes 95 and 96 regarding 'flagrant denial of justice'.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States |
Requesting country for extradition.
|
|
| European Court of Human Rights |
Judicial body whose articles (ECHR) are being analyzed.
|
|
| United Kingdom |
Requested country; location where Maxwell might abscond.
|
|
| Westminster City Magistrates’ Court |
Referenced in legal citation in footnote 97.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (implied by footer stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction imposing bail conditions and requesting extradition.
|
|
|
Potential location Ms. Maxwell might abscond to.
|
Relationships (1)
Discussion of extradition request and breach of bail conditions.
Key Quotes (4)
"It is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to rely on Article 3 to defeat a request for her extradition."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002109.jpg
Quote #1
"The test of ‘flagrant denial’ is particularly high, requiring a court to find not only that the trial would be unfair, but that there would be “a total nullification of the right to a fair trial”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002109.jpg
Quote #2
"Given the nature of the charges that she faces, it is highly unlikely that such an argument would succeed in Ms Maxwell’s case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002109.jpg
Quote #3
"if the United States were to request Ms Maxwell’s extradition in circumstances where she had absconded to the United Kingdom in breach of bail conditions imposed in the United States, it is extremely unlikely that she would be granted bail"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002109.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,969 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-21 Filed 12/14/20 Page 14 of 29
specific concerns, such as access to medical care⁹³. In those circumstances, it is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to rely on Article 3 to defeat a request for her extradition.
Article 6 (fair trial)
37. Article 6 ECHR protects the right to a fair trial, and the European Court of Human Rights has noted that Article 6 is “strikingly similar” to the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution⁹⁴. An issue may exceptionally be raised under Article 6 in an extradition case in circumstances where the requested person risks suffering a flagrant denial of justice in the requesting country⁹⁵. The test of ‘flagrant denial’ is particularly high, requiring a court to find not only that the trial would be unfair, but that there would be “a total nullification of the right to a fair trial”⁹⁶ In practice, this threshold is rarely overcome in extradition cases and it has never been met in a US extradition case. In those circumstances, it is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to successfully invoke Article 6 to resist her extradition.
Article 8 (private and family life)
38. Article 8 ECHR protects the right to private and family life. In assessing Article 8, the court is required to conduct a balancing exercise where factors in favour of extradition, including the “constant and weighty” public interests in honouring extradition treaties and ensuring that people accused of crimes should be brought to trial, are weighed against any personal or other factors that would render extradition an interference with private or family life. The test is whether any interference would be disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued by extradition⁹⁷. In practice, the more serious the offence, the more difficult it is to establish that extradition would be disproportionate. Given the nature of the charges that she faces, it is highly unlikely that such an argument would succeed in Ms Maxwell’s case.
Conclusion
39. In conclusion, if the United States were to request Ms Maxwell’s extradition in circumstances where she had absconded to the United Kingdom in breach of bail conditions imposed in the United States, it is extremely unlikely that she would be granted bail and highly unlikely that she would be able
⁹³ See, for example, Miao at para. 37 where the court stated that: “Assurances are commonly given in extradition cases in order to mitigate risks which might otherwise bar extradition. It is common for assurances to be given in respect of conditions of detention and the treatment of physical and mental illness (and associated suicide prevention) and they form an important part of extradition law”.
⁹⁴ Ahmad v United Kingdom 51 EHRR SE6, para. 133.
⁹⁵ Othman v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 1, para. 258.
⁹⁶ Othman, para. 260.
⁹⁷ R (on the application of HH) v Westminster City Magistrates’ Court [2013] 1 AC 338, para. 30.
⁹⁴ Ahmad v United Kingdom 51 EHRR SE6, para. 133.
⁹⁵ Othman v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 1, para. 258.
⁹⁶ Othman, para. 260.
⁹⁷ R (on the application of HH) v Westminster City Magistrates’ Court [2013] 1 AC 338, para. 30.
1922623.1
13
13
DOJ-OGR-00002109
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document