DOJ-OGR-00002106.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-21 Filed 12/14/20 Page 11 of 29

interest in these offences being tried⁶⁶. Similarly, there is a high threshold in relation to injustice⁶⁷,
and it is very unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to meet it. There is a general presumption that
justice will be done despite the passage of time and the burden is on the requested person to establish
the contrary⁶⁸. In assessing injustice, the appropriate judge would have regard to the procedural
safeguards that exist under US domestic law⁶⁹. Further, the judge is very likely to place weight on the
fact that Ms Maxwell had, in the hypothetical scenario under consideration, absconded from ongoing
proceedings that would otherwise have resulted in her trial in the US. As the English High Court
expressed in Tollman “the very fact that the accused invokes justice to prevent [their] extradition
requires consideration of the circumstances which have led to the fact that [they are] not facing
justice in the country from which [they have] fled”⁷⁰. In those circumstances it is very unlikely that
Ms Maxwell would be able to rely on the bar of passage of time to defeat extradition.

Forum

32. It is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to rely on the bar of forum, which applies where
extradition would not be in the interests of justice because: (a) a substantial measure of the requested
person’s ‘relevant activity’⁷¹ occurred in the UK; and (b) having regard to ‘the specified matters’⁷²
relating to the interests of justice (and only those matters), the extradition should not take place⁷³.

33. Although some of the conduct alleged in the superseding indictment is said to have occurred in
London⁷⁴, three of the ‘specified matters’ are likely to weigh heavily against a finding that extradition
would be barred by forum. First, it appears that the majority of the harm caused by the offending⁷⁵
alleged in the superseding indictment occurred in the United States. An extradition judge would treat

_________________________________________________________________
⁶⁶ Kakis at 784. Although the passage of time bar was successfully relied on in the US extradition case of Eason v
Government of the United States of America [2020] EWHC 604 (Admin) the case-law is clear that a fact-specific
enquiry is required, and that authorities are of “very limited value” when considering the facts of individual cases:
Steblins v Government of Latvia [2006] EWHC 1272 (Admin), para. 13.

⁶⁷ Gomes, para. 36 and Lisowski-v-Regional Court of Bialystock (Poland) [2006] EWHC 3227 (Admin), para. 9.

⁶⁸ Gomes, para. 36.

⁶⁹ Woodcock v Government of New Zealand [2004] 1 WLR 47, para. 29; Gomes, para. 32; Linkevicius v Prosecutor
General’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania [2006] EWHC 3481 (Admin) at para. 17; and Crean v Government of
Ireland [2007] EWHC 814 (Admin) at para. 21; Henderson, paras. 19-26.

⁷⁰ Government of the United States of America v Tollman [2008] EWHC 184 (Admin), para. 53.

⁷¹ ‘Relevant activity’ means activity which is material to the commission of the extradition offence and is alleged to have
been performed by the requested person: Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(6).

⁷² As defined in s. 83A(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.

⁷³ Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(1) and (2).

⁷⁴ Superseding indictment dated 7 August 2020, para. 6.

⁷⁵ Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(a).

1922623.1
10

DOJ-OGR-00002106