mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002103.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "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 8 of 29\n(c) The appropriate judge is required to send the case to the Secretary of State44;\n(d) The speciality bar to extradition no longer applies45.\n18. In all extradition cases, a requested person who consents to extradition loses the right to appeal against either the decision to send the case to the Secretary of State or the order for extradition46.\n19. The main effect of a decision by a requested person to consent to extradition is that the overall extradition procedure is substantially shortened. In the context of US extradition cases, this means that removal can take place within months, sometimes weeks, as compared to the longer timescales considered above.\nC. Bail in extradition cases\n20. Where extradition is sought for the purpose of prosecuting the requested person for an offence, the person has the same right to bail as a defendant in domestic criminal proceedings, namely there is a presumption that bail will be granted unless one of the exceptions in Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976 applies47. The three exceptions in Schedule 1 that most commonly apply in extradition proceedings are where there are substantial grounds to believe that the requested person, if released on bail, would: (a) fail to surrender to custody; (b) commit an offence while on bail; or (c) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice48.\n21. In considering whether to grant bail in an extradition case, the appropriate judge must have regard to as many of the statutory considerations as appear to be relevant49. Those considerations are: (a) the nature and seriousness of the offence and the likely sentence; (b) the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the requested person; (c) the requested person's record as respects the fulfilment of their obligations under previous grants of bail in criminal proceedings; (d) the strength of the evidence against the requested person; and (e) any risk that the requested person may cause physical to mental injury to another person.\n22. The approach taken by the High Court in a number of recent US bail appeals gives an indication as to the way in which the statutory considerations are approached in practice. In all five cases bail was refused50.\n44 Extradition Act 2003, s. 128(4).\n45 Extradition Act 2003, s.95(2). The principle of specialty is a rule of extradition law that is intended to ensure that an extradited person is not dealt with in the requesting state for any offence other than that for which they have been extradited.\n46 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 100(2), 103(2) and 108(2).\n47 Bail Act 1976, s. 4(2A). There is no presumption of bail where extradition is sought in a conviction case: s. 4(2B).\n48 Bail Act 1976, Schedule 1, para. 2(1).\n49 Bail Act 1976, Schedule 1, para. 9.\n50 Adeagbo v Government of the United States of America, 5 August 2020 (unreported) (wire fraud, money laundering and identity theft); Singh v Government of the United States of America [2019] EWHC 1800 (Admin) (drug trafficking);\n1922623.1\n7\nDOJ-OGR-00002103",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-21 Filed 12/14/20 Page 8 of 29",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(c) The appropriate judge is required to send the case to the Secretary of State44;\n(d) The speciality bar to extradition no longer applies45.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18. In all extradition cases, a requested person who consents to extradition loses the right to appeal against either the decision to send the case to the Secretary of State or the order for extradition46.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "19. The main effect of a decision by a requested person to consent to extradition is that the overall extradition procedure is substantially shortened. In the context of US extradition cases, this means that removal can take place within months, sometimes weeks, as compared to the longer timescales considered above.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. Bail in extradition cases",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20. Where extradition is sought for the purpose of prosecuting the requested person for an offence, the person has the same right to bail as a defendant in domestic criminal proceedings, namely there is a presumption that bail will be granted unless one of the exceptions in Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976 applies47. The three exceptions in Schedule 1 that most commonly apply in extradition proceedings are where there are substantial grounds to believe that the requested person, if released on bail, would: (a) fail to surrender to custody; (b) commit an offence while on bail; or (c) interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice48.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "21. In considering whether to grant bail in an extradition case, the appropriate judge must have regard to as many of the statutory considerations as appear to be relevant49. Those considerations are: (a) the nature and seriousness of the offence and the likely sentence; (b) the character, antecedents, associations and community ties of the requested person; (c) the requested person's record as respects the fulfilment of their obligations under previous grants of bail in criminal proceedings; (d) the strength of the evidence against the requested person; and (e) any risk that the requested person may cause physical to mental injury to another person.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "22. The approach taken by the High Court in a number of recent US bail appeals gives an indication as to the way in which the statutory considerations are approached in practice. In all five cases bail was refused50.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "44 Extradition Act 2003, s. 128(4).\n45 Extradition Act 2003, s.95(2). The principle of specialty is a rule of extradition law that is intended to ensure that an extradited person is not dealt with in the requesting state for any offence other than that for which they have been extradited.\n46 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 100(2), 103(2) and 108(2).\n47 Bail Act 1976, s. 4(2A). There is no presumption of bail where extradition is sought in a conviction case: s. 4(2B).\n48 Bail Act 1976, Schedule 1, para. 2(1).\n49 Bail Act 1976, Schedule 1, para. 9.\n50 Adeagbo v Government of the United States of America, 5 August 2020 (unreported) (wire fraud, money laundering and identity theft); Singh v Government of the United States of America [2019] EWHC 1800 (Admin) (drug trafficking);",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1922623.1\n7\nDOJ-OGR-00002103",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Secretary of State",
      "High Court",
      "Government of the United States of America"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States of America"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "12/14/20",
      "5 August 2020",
      "2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 97-21",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002103",
      "1922623.1"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to extradition cases. It is a printed document with no handwritten text or stamps. The text is clear and legible."
}