{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "97-21",
    "date": "12/14/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-21 Filed 12/14/20 Page 11 of 29\n\ninterest in these offences being tried66. Similarly, there is a high threshold in relation to injustice67, and it is very unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to meet it. There is a general presumption that justice will be done despite the passage of time and the burden is on the requested person to establish the contrary68. In assessing injustice, the appropriate judge would have regard to the procedural safeguards that exist under US domestic law69. Further, the judge is very likely to place weight on the fact that Ms Maxwell had, in the hypothetical scenario under consideration, absconded from ongoing proceedings that would otherwise have resulted in her trial in the US. As the English High Court expressed it in Tollman \"the very fact that the accused invokes justice to prevent [their] extradition requires consideration of the circumstances which have led to the fact that [they are] not facing justice in the country from which [they have] fled\"70. In those circumstances it is very unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to rely on the bar of passage of time to defeat extradition.\n\nForum\n\n32. It is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to rely on the bar of forum, which applies where extradition would not be in the interests of justice because: (a) a substantial measure of the requested person's 'relevant activity'71 occurred in the UK; and (b) having regard to 'the specified matters'72 relating to the interests of justice (and only those matters), the extradition should not take place73.\n33. Although some of the conduct alleged in the superseding indictment is said to have occurred in London74, three of the 'specified matters' are likely to weigh heavily against a finding that extradition would be barred by forum. First, it appears that the majority of the harm caused by the offending75 alleged in the superseding indictment occurred in the United States. An extradition judge would treat\n\n66 Kakis at 784. Although the passage of time bar was successfully relied on in the US extradition case of Eason v Government of the United States of America [2020] EWHC 604 (Admin) the case-law is clear that a fact-specific enquiry is required, and that authorities are of \"very limited value\" when considering the facts of individual cases: Sieblins v Government of Latvia [2006] EWHC 1272 (Admin), para. 13.\n67 Gomes, para. 36 and Lisowski-v-Regional Court of Bialystock (Poland) [2006] EWHC 3227 (Admin), para. 9.\n68 Gomes, para. 36.\n69 Woodcock v Government of New Zealand [2004] 1 WLR 47, para. 29; Gomes, para. 32; Linkevicius v Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania [2006] EWHC 3481 (Admin) at para. 17; and Crean v Government of Ireland [2007] EWHC 814 (Admin) at para. 21; Henderson, paras. 19-26.\n70 Government of the United States of America v Tollman [2008] EWHC 184 (Admin), para. 53.\n71 'Relevant activity' means activity which is material to the commission of the extradition offence and is alleged to have been performed by the requested person: Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(6).\n72 As defined in s. 83A(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.\n73 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(1) and (2).\n74 Superseding indictment dated 7 August 2020, para. 6.\n75 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(a).\n\n1922623.1\n10\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002106",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-21 Filed 12/14/20 Page 11 of 29",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "interest in these offences being tried66. Similarly, there is a high threshold in relation to injustice67, and it is very unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to meet it. There is a general presumption that justice will be done despite the passage of time and the burden is on the requested person to establish the contrary68. In assessing injustice, the appropriate judge would have regard to the procedural safeguards that exist under US domestic law69. Further, the judge is very likely to place weight on the fact that Ms Maxwell had, in the hypothetical scenario under consideration, absconded from ongoing proceedings that would otherwise have resulted in her trial in the US. As the English High Court expressed it in Tollman \"the very fact that the accused invokes justice to prevent [their] extradition requires consideration of the circumstances which have led to the fact that [they are] not facing justice in the country from which [they have] fled\"70. In those circumstances it is very unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to rely on the bar of passage of time to defeat extradition.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Forum",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "32. It is highly unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able to rely on the bar of forum, which applies where extradition would not be in the interests of justice because: (a) a substantial measure of the requested person's 'relevant activity'71 occurred in the UK; and (b) having regard to 'the specified matters'72 relating to the interests of justice (and only those matters), the extradition should not take place73.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "33. Although some of the conduct alleged in the superseding indictment is said to have occurred in London74, three of the 'specified matters' are likely to weigh heavily against a finding that extradition would be barred by forum. First, it appears that the majority of the harm caused by the offending75 alleged in the superseding indictment occurred in the United States. An extradition judge would treat",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "66 Kakis at 784. Although the passage of time bar was successfully relied on in the US extradition case of Eason v Government of the United States of America [2020] EWHC 604 (Admin) the case-law is clear that a fact-specific enquiry is required, and that authorities are of \"very limited value\" when considering the facts of individual cases: Sieblins v Government of Latvia [2006] EWHC 1272 (Admin), para. 13.\n67 Gomes, para. 36 and Lisowski-v-Regional Court of Bialystock (Poland) [2006] EWHC 3227 (Admin), para. 9.\n68 Gomes, para. 36.\n69 Woodcock v Government of New Zealand [2004] 1 WLR 47, para. 29; Gomes, para. 32; Linkevicius v Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania [2006] EWHC 3481 (Admin) at para. 17; and Crean v Government of Ireland [2007] EWHC 814 (Admin) at para. 21; Henderson, paras. 19-26.\n70 Government of the United States of America v Tollman [2008] EWHC 184 (Admin), para. 53.\n71 'Relevant activity' means activity which is material to the commission of the extradition offence and is alleged to have been performed by the requested person: Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(6).\n72 As defined in s. 83A(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.\n73 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(1) and (2).\n74 Superseding indictment dated 7 August 2020, para. 6.\n75 Extradition Act 2003, s. 83A(3)(a).",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1922623.1\n10",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002106",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government of the United States of America",
      "Government of Latvia",
      "Regional Court of Bialystock (Poland)",
      "Government of New Zealand",
      "Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania",
      "Government of Ireland"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "US",
      "UK",
      "London",
      "United States",
      "New Zealand",
      "Lithuania",
      "Ireland",
      "Poland"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "12/14/20",
      "7 August 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "97-21",
      "1922623.1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002106"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the extradition case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}