DOJ-OGR-00002104.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-21 Filed 12/14/20 Page 9 of 29 In three of the five cases the applicant was either a British citizen or had significant community and family ties to the UK! but these were outweighed by the risk of flight, and in the other case, the lack of substantial community ties was cited as a factor in refusing bail®. 23. As to the question in Peters and Peters’ instructions, namely whether a person who absconded from US criminal proceeding in breach of bail would be likely to be granted bail in any subsequent UK extradition proceedings, such a person is extremely unlikely to be granted bail. While every bail application falls to be considered by reference to all the circumstances that are relevant at the time that the application is made, in practice evidence of both a clear desire to evade prosecution for the offences in the extradition request, and a previous history of failure to comply with bail conditions, would militate strongly against the grant of bail in almost all factual circumstances. D. The bars to extradition that may conceivably be open to Ms Maxwell should she face extradition to the US in relation to the charges on the superseding indictment dated 7 August 2020 24. The offences in the superseding indictment are extradition offences within the meaning of section 137 of the Extradition Act 2003. 25. On the basis of the information available, there does not appear to be any arguable basis upon which the bars of double jeopardy”; hostage-taking considerations”; death penalty”®; speciality’’; or earlier extradition or transfer could be engaged”®. 26. On the information available, the remaining bars - abuse of process/political motivation; passage of time; forum; and mental and physical condition - would almost certainly fail in this case. Perry, fn 44, (kidnapping); Abdullah v Government of the United States of America [2018] EWHC 2609 (Admin) (fraud); Government of the United States of America v Panovas [2018] EWHC 921 (Admin) (fraud). *! Abdullah; Panovas; Perry: and Adeagbo. » Singh. *? Had the conduct alleged occurred in the United Kingdom it would have amounted offences that include: (a) conspiracy to commit indecent assault contrary to section | of the Criminal Law Act 1967; (b) aiding and abetting or inciting indecent assault contrary to common law; (c) indecent assault contrary to section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1957; and (d) perjury contrary to section 1 of the Perjury Act 1911. * Extradition Act 2003, s. 80. This bar is engaged “if (and only if) it appears that [the person] would be entitled to be discharged under any rule of law relating to previous acquittal or conviction if he were charged with the extradition offence in the part of the United Kingdom where the judge exercises his jurisdiction”. °° Extradition Act 2003, s. 83. One of the requirements of this bar is that the act or omission constituting the extradition offence also constitutes an offence under s. 1 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982 which prohibits the taking of hostages in the context of international terrorism. °° Extradition Act 2003, s. 94. °7 Extradition Act 2003, s. 95. See fn 46 above for a definition of ‘specialty’. °8 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 96 and 96A. 1922623.1 8 DOJ-OGR- 00002104