DOJ-OGR-00002105.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-21 Filed 12/14/20 Page 10 of 29 Abuse of process/political motivation 27. Extradition requests are rarely discharged on the basis that the case in the requesting state is politically motivated or abusive. It is well established that there is a presumption of good faith in relation to a requesting state, such as the US, which has a long history of respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and which has longstanding extradition arrangements with the United Kingdom”. 28. It is highly unlikely that Ms. Maxwell would be able to establish that the US prosecutor had acted in bad faith, for example by seeking her extradition for a collateral motive in circumstances where they : 60 knew there was no real case against her”. 29. It is also highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to establish that her extradition was sought for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing her on account of her political opinions, or that she might be prejudiced at her trial or punished, detained or restricted in her personal liberty by reason of those opinions”. Passage of time 30. Notwithstanding the date of the allegations in the superseding indictment, a judge is unlikely to conclude that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite Ms Maxwell by reason of the passage of time since the alleged commission of the offences®. The courts have upheld orders for extradition in cases with similar timescales to those in Ms Maxwell’s case, including two cases involving historic allegations of sexual offending where the relevant time period was 20 and 33 years. In both cases, the courts placed emphasis on the public interest in ensuring that extradition arrangements were honoured and in ensuring that serious allegations were tried”. 31. As to oppression, the graver the offence the higher the threshold for oppression™. Given the seriousness of the offences in Ms Maxwell’s case, it is unlikely that she would be able to establish that any personal or family hardship that might be caused by the extradition” should outweigh the public »° Ahmad v United Kingdom (2010) 51 EHRR SE6, para. 105. 8 R (Bermingham) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2007] QB 727, para. 100. *! Extradition Act 2003, s. 81. © Extradition Act 2003, s. 82. The date range for the offences in the superseding indictment is 1994-1997, ° Short v Falkland Islands [2020] 1 WLR 1644, paras. 41-49 and Henderson v Government of Australia [2015] EWHC 1421 (Admin), paras. 19-26. ** Kakis v Government of the Republic of Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR 779 at 784. °° Oppression requires personal or family hardship greater than that inevitably inherent in the act of extradition when facing what is likely to be long criminal trial process in another country_Gomes_v Government of Trinidad and Tobago [2009] 1 WLR 1038, para. 36; Norris v Government of United States of America [2007] 1 WLR 1730. 1922623.1 9 DOJ-OGR-00002105