Anne-Marie Kundert
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
[REDACTED]
|
Corresponded about extradition law |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Punam Chopra
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-12-10 | N/A | Anne-Marie Kundert provides feedback from Crown Prosecution Service regarding extradition consent. | N/A | View |
| 2020-12-09 | N/A | Discussion about a UK citizen facing a US crime, detained in the US, and seeking bail by offering... | N/A | View |
EFTA00016026.pdf
This document is an email chain from December 2020 discussing extradition law, specifically concerning the enforceability of a defendant's consent to extradition from the UK to the US. The emails involve individuals from the US Department of Justice and the Crown Prosecution Service, clarifying that consent given in the US would not be binding in the UK and that a UK judge must independently verify extradition compliance with UK law. The discussion centers on a UK citizen, detained in the US, attempting to use prophylactic consent to extradition as proof of not being a flight risk for bail purposes.
RE: Extradition question
The standard principle is that extradition should be sought only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. If a RP indicated a willingness to fully abide by conditions of bail etc then it would be a matter for the US authorities as to whether to accept those terms. If the RP returned to the UK but then reneged on the deal, then the failure to comply with such undertakings would inevitably lead to a Request for extradition and would be a factor on whether the person is detained on bail or in custody. If the RP was to offer a consent, the judge in court would need to satisfy himself that the RP had received appropriate legal advice, because it is irrevocable and there is no ground to appeal. The SSHD would then have a month to arrange the surrender. The only consent that matters is the one before the extradition judge in the UK and it will usually be determined at the initial hearing but can be offered at any time before the extradition hearing has concluded. There is no caselaw on this to my mind but the relevant statutory provisions are s 72 (7)(b) and 72(8) for full order, s74 (7)(b) and s74 (8) for provisional arrest and s127 and s128 on consent: irrevocable point/legal advice and sending of case to SSHD.
Extradition question
Dear Anne-Marie - I hope you are well. It has been too long since we have talked! I have a UK extradition question which has been raised by a UK citz facing a US crime and currently being detained in the US. The defendant is seeking bail in the US and wants to execute a prophylactic “consent to be extradited” from the UK as proof that he is not a flight risk. My understanding of UK law is that even if a defendant consents to be extradited, a UK judge still has to independently be satisfied that the extradition comports with UK law. So for instance, if the defendant is released, flees to the UK, and then faces UK extradition, that consent may be evidence, but a UK judge would still have to decide on all factors potentially applicable at the time of the extradition. (The defendant may also claim that his prophylactic consent was coerced by his condition in the US.) Do I have that right? Is there a case or two which I can cite for standards for that proposition?
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity