Halaman utama Jelajahi Bantuan
Masuk
github-mirrors
/
mirror-epstein-docs
1
0
Fork 0
Berkas Masalah 0 Permintaan Tarik 0 Wiki
Pohon: 017ff274cb
Ranting Tag
mirror-epstein-...
/
results
/
IMAGES001
/
DOJ-OGR-00002101.json

DOJ-OGR-00002101.json 6.5 KB
Riwayat Mentahan

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545556575859606162636465666768 
  1. {
    2. 

  2.   "document_metadata": {
    3. 

  3.     "page_number": "6 of 29",
    4. 

  4.     "document_number": "97-21",
    5. 

  5.     "date": "12/14/20",
    6. 

  6.     "document_type": "court document",
    7. 

  7.     "has_handwriting": false,
    8. 

  8.     "has_stamps": false
    9. 

  9.   },
    10. 

  10.   "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-21 Filed 12/14/20 Page 6 of 29\n9. A requested person may appeal the decision of the appropriate judge to send the case to the Secretary of State, the decision of the Secretary of State to order extradition, or both28, except in consent cases where the person is deemed to have waived their rights of appeal29. Where the requested person is discharged at the extradition hearing or by the Secretary of State, the requesting government may appeal the decision to discharge30. Extradition appeals are heard by the High Court. An appeal may be brought on a question of law or fact and may not be brought unless the court grants leave to appeal which requires the Appellant to establish that there is a reasonably arguable ground of appeal31.\n10. Either party may appeal a decision of the High Court to the Supreme Court, but only where the High Court has certified that the decision involves a point of law of general public importance, and either the High Court or the Supreme Court concludes that the point is one that ought to be considered by the Supreme Court32. Where leave is granted, the Supreme Court may either grant the appeal, or dismiss it33. In practice, such appeals are extremely rare; in the past ten years, only one US extradition case has been considered by the Supreme Court34.\n11. In some cases, a requested person may apply to the European Court of Human Rights and seek an injunction to prevent the extradition from taking place until the application is determined35. Such applications, which must be based on an alleged violation of a right under the ECHR36, are also very rare.\n26 Extradition Act 2003, s. 93(4).\n27 The exceptions are: (a) that the Secretary of State is informed that the request has been withdrawn (s. 93(4)(a)); (b) there is a competing claim for extradition from another state (ss. 93(4)(b), 126(2) and 179(2)); (c) the person has been granted asylum or humanitarian protection in the United Kingdom (s. 93(4)(c) and 6(A)); or (d) extradition would be against the interests of UK national security (s. 208).\n28 Extradition Act 2003, ss.103 and 108.\n29 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 103(2) and 108(2).\n30 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 105 and 110.\n31 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 103(4), 105(4), 108(3) and 110(4) and Criminal Procedure Rules ('CrimPR'), r. 50.17(4)(b).\n32 Extradition Act 2003, s. 114(4).\n33 Extradition Act 2003, s. 115(1).\n34 Norris v Government of the United States of America [2010] 2 AC 487.\n35 ECHR, Art. 34 and European Court of Human Rights, Rules of the Court, r. 39.\n36 ECHR, Art. 34.\n1922623.1\n5\nDOJ-OGR-00002101",
    11. 

  11.   "text_blocks": [
    12. 

  12.     {
    13. 

  13.       "type": "printed",
    14. 

  14.       "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-21 Filed 12/14/20 Page 6 of 29",
    15. 

  15.       "position": "header"
    16. 

  16.     },
    17. 

  17.     {
    18. 

  18.       "type": "printed",
    19. 

  19.       "content": "9. A requested person may appeal the decision of the appropriate judge to send the case to the Secretary of State, the decision of the Secretary of State to order extradition, or both28, except in consent cases where the person is deemed to have waived their rights of appeal29. Where the requested person is discharged at the extradition hearing or by the Secretary of State, the requesting government may appeal the decision to discharge30. Extradition appeals are heard by the High Court. An appeal may be brought on a question of law or fact and may not be brought unless the court grants leave to appeal which requires the Appellant to establish that there is a reasonably arguable ground of appeal31.",
    20. 

  20.       "position": "main content"
    21. 

  21.     },
    22. 

  22.     {
    23. 

  23.       "type": "printed",
    24. 

  24.       "content": "10. Either party may appeal a decision of the High Court to the Supreme Court, but only where the High Court has certified that the decision involves a point of law of general public importance, and either the High Court or the Supreme Court concludes that the point is one that ought to be considered by the Supreme Court32. Where leave is granted, the Supreme Court may either grant the appeal, or dismiss it33. In practice, such appeals are extremely rare; in the past ten years, only one US extradition case has been considered by the Supreme Court34.",
    25. 

  25.       "position": "main content"
    26. 

  26.     },
    27. 

  27.     {
    28. 

  28.       "type": "printed",
    29. 

  29.       "content": "11. In some cases, a requested person may apply to the European Court of Human Rights and seek an injunction to prevent the extradition from taking place until the application is determined35. Such applications, which must be based on an alleged violation of a right under the ECHR36, are also very rare.",
    30. 

  30.       "position": "main content"
    31. 

  31.     },
    32. 

  32.     {
    33. 

  33.       "type": "printed",
    34. 

  34.       "content": "26 Extradition Act 2003, s. 93(4).\n27 The exceptions are: (a) that the Secretary of State is informed that the request has been withdrawn (s. 93(4)(a)); (b) there is a competing claim for extradition from another state (ss. 93(4)(b), 126(2) and 179(2)); (c) the person has been granted asylum or humanitarian protection in the United Kingdom (s. 93(4)(c) and 6(A)); or (d) extradition would be against the interests of UK national security (s. 208).\n28 Extradition Act 2003, ss.103 and 108.\n29 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 103(2) and 108(2).\n30 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 105 and 110.\n31 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 103(4), 105(4), 108(3) and 110(4) and Criminal Procedure Rules ('CrimPR'), r. 50.17(4)(b).\n32 Extradition Act 2003, s. 114(4).\n33 Extradition Act 2003, s. 115(1).\n34 Norris v Government of the United States of America [2010] 2 AC 487.\n35 ECHR, Art. 34 and European Court of Human Rights, Rules of the Court, r. 39.\n36 ECHR, Art. 34.",
    35. 

  35.       "position": "footer"
    36. 

  36.     },
    37. 

  37.     {
    38. 

  38.       "type": "printed",
    39. 

  39.       "content": "1922623.1\n5\nDOJ-OGR-00002101",
    40. 

  40.       "position": "footer"
    41. 

  41.     }
    42. 

  42.   ],
    43. 

  43.   "entities": {
    44. 

  44.     "people": [],
    45. 

  45.     "organizations": [
    46. 

  46.       "European Court of Human Rights",
    47. 

  47.       "High Court",
    48. 

  48.       "Supreme Court",
    49. 

  49.       "Secretary of State"
    50. 

  50.     ],
    51. 

  51.     "locations": [
    52. 

  52.       "United Kingdom",
    53. 

  53.       "United States of America",
    54. 

  54.       "UK"
    55. 

  55.     ],
    56. 

  56.     "dates": [
    57. 

  57.       "12/14/20",
    58. 

  58.       "2010"
    59. 

  59.     ],
    60. 

  60.     "reference_numbers": [
    61. 

  61.       "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
    62. 

  62.       "97-21",
    63. 

  63.       "1922623.1",
    64. 

  64.       "DOJ-OGR-00002101"
    65. 

  65.     ]
    66. 

  66.   },
    67. 

  67.   "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to extradition proceedings. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
    68. 

  68. }
    69.