DOJ-OGR-00002107.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-21 Filed 12/14/20 Page 12 of 29 this as a weighty factor”. Second, a court would be likely to consider that the interests of the victims’’ would be best served by a trial in the United States. The High Court has held that the ®® “Will be in having a trial at a place where, if they do give evidence or wish to be x 19 interests of victims present, they can be so” ”. Third, Ms Maxwell’s connections to the UK*° do not appear to be of a type likely to be considered substantial in this context. Mental and physical condition 34. It is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to establish that her physical or mental condition is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite her*'. In order to rely on her physical or mental health in opposition to extradition, Ms Maxwell would need to serve evidence sufficient to meet the statutory test. Most cases in the ‘unjust’ category relate to the persons’ fitness to plead to otherwise to participate in trial proceedings. Oppression is a high threshold, not easily surmountable* and stress and hardship, which occur in most extradition cases, are not sufficient’. Even in cases where the requested person suffers from a serious medical conditions, it is often possible for the requesting state gives an assurance as to the medical care that will be provided™, or an undertaking to return an individual if they are later found to be unfit to plead*, and thus ensure that extradition is possible notwithstanding the requested person’s medical problems. ’6 Love v United States [2018] 1 WLR 2889, para. 28. ” Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(a). 8 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(a). ” Shaw v United States [2014] EWHC 4654 (Admin), paragraph 61. It is to be noted in this regard that, at Ms Maxwell’s bail hearing on 14 July 2020, one of the victims made a statement in person and another provided a written statement that was read to the court by the prosecutor: United States of America vy Ghislaine Maxwell, Transcript of hearing, 14 July 2020, pp. 38-40. *° Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(g). *! Extradition Act 2003, s. 91. ® Love v Government of the United States, para. 122. 83 Dewani v Govenrment of South Africa [2012] EWHC 842 (Admin), para. 73. * Miao v Government of the United States of America [2020] EWHC 2178 (Admin), para. 37. 85 : Dewani. 1922623.1 11 DOJ-OGR-00002107