DOJ-OGR-00002228.jpg
728 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal opinion / court filing (exhibit)
File Size:
728 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing (Exhibit 103-2) dated December 23, 2020, analyzing UK extradition law in relation to Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that if Maxwell were to flee the US to the UK, she would likely be denied bail and her arguments against extradition (oppression, human rights) would fail due to 'bad faith' and the serious nature of the charges. It also clarifies the limited powers of the UK Secretary of State to refuse extradition under the Extradition Act 2003.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms Maxwell | Defendant / Subject of Extradition |
Subject of the legal arguments regarding extradition, bail, and potential flight risk.
|
| Secretary of State | Government Official (UK) |
Official with specific, limited powers to refuse extradition under the Extradition Act 2003.
|
| Extradition Judge | Judicial Officer |
Judge who would decide on findings of oppression and evaluate evidence.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Government |
Prosecuting authority (implied) and jurisdiction from which Maxwell might abscond.
|
|
| ECHR |
European Convention on Human Rights (referenced regarding Article 8).
|
|
| International Criminal Court |
Referenced in footnote 6 regarding transfer contexts.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by the footer 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-12-23
Filing of Document 103-2 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN.
Court Record
Hypothetical/Past Context
Ms Maxwell absconding from the United States and contesting extradition.
United States / United Kingdom
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction from which Maxwell is hypothesized to have absconded.
|
|
|
Implied jurisdiction for the Extradition Act 2003 and Secretary of State.
|
Relationships (1)
Document discusses her extradition to the US and potential absconding.
Key Quotes (4)
"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"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002228.jpg
Quote #1
"where she had absconded from the United States and was contesting her extradition in breach of good faith undertakings"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002228.jpg
Quote #2
"A breach of the undertakings in the waiver of extradition would be highly likely to be viewed as a sign of bad faith"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002228.jpg
Quote #3
"The Secretary of State may only refuse extradition on the grounds provided for in that section"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002228.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,470 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).
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).
DOJ-OGR-00002228
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document