DOJ-OGR-00001208.jpg

CaSese 20 6f AD 320s Aste nie nH 10321 , AREBI2Y S72QePage HOF 4 another state®; (d) the person has been granted asylum or humanitarian protection in the United Kingdom’; or (e) extradition would be against the interests of UK national security'’. On the information currently known, none of these bars or exceptions would arise in the case of Ms Maxwell. 5. The exceptional nature of the Secretary of State’s power is illustrated by the fact that it has been exercised in the favour of a requested person on only one occasion since the enactment of the 2003 Act, and that that single exercise of the power was based on grounds on which reliance may not now be placed. " 6. Third, as to the timescales of extradition proceedings arising from requests for extradition made by the Government of the United States, it is to be noted that the purpose of the 2003 Act to streamline extradition procedures’* and, in practice, the legislation works to facilitate extradition. As noted in the Opinion’’ the majority of extradition cases conclude within two years, or three months in cases where consent to extradition is given. David Perry QC 6KBW College Hill 17 December 2020 * Extradition Act 2003, ss. 93(4)(b), 126(2) and 179(2). ” Extradition Act 2003, s. 93(4)(c) and (6A). '° Extradition Act 2003, s. 208. '' viz. in the case of Gary McKinnon, whose extradition was refused by the Secretary of State in 2012 on the basis that he was seriously mentally ill and that there was a high risk of suicide were he to be extradited; since that decision, the Secretary of State has been barred from refusing extradition on the basis of human rights grounds: Extradition Act 2003, s. 70(11) (as inserted by the Crime and Courts Act 2013 with effect from 29 July 2013). '? Welsh v United States [2007] 1 WLR 156 (Admin) para. 26. '? Opinion, para. 13. DOJ-OGR-00001208