mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002102.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "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 7 of 29\n\nAn overview of the timeframes in relation to US extradition requests\n\n12. The timescales applicable to extradition proceedings are defined by statute and are set out in Annex D, along with the circumstances in which the time-limits can be extended.\n\n13. There are few publicly available figures with respect to the timescales in Part 2 extradition cases in general, and none with respect to US extradition cases. In July 2013, the UK Government estimated that, on average, Part 2 extradition cases took approximately 10 months to conclude37. In practice, contested US extradition cases can take longer than 10 months, although the majority conclude within two years.\n\n14. These timescales are significantly reduced in cases such as this one where the requested person consents to his or her extradition at an early stage in the process. In those cases, extradition would be likely to take place within three months.\n\nB. Consent to extradition\n\n15. At the initial hearing where a requested person is first produced before the court, the appropriate judge is required to give them \"the required information about consent\"38. This information is: (a) that the person may consent to extradition; (b) an explanation of the effect of consent and the procedure that will apply if consent is given; and (c) that consent must be given in writing and is irrevocable39.\n\n16. Where consent is given before the case has been sent to the Secretary of State, it must be given at a hearing before the appropriate judge40. Once the case has been sent to the Secretary of State, consent must be given to the Secretary of State41.\n\n17. Where consent is given before the case is sent to the Secretary of State, the consequences are as follows:\n\n(a) If the appropriate judge has not fixed a date for the extradition hearing, they are not required to do so42;\n\n(b) If the extradition hearing has begun, the appropriate judge is no longer required to proceed with it43;\n\n37 HM Government, Decision pursuant to Article 10 of Protocol 36 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, July 2013, Cm 8671, page 94.\n\n38 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 72(7)(b) and 74(7)(b).\n\n39 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 72(8) and 74(8).\n\n40 Extradition Act 2003, s. 127(4), (6)-(7).\n\n41 Extradition Act 2003, s.127(5).\n\n42 Extradition Act 2003, s. 128(2).\n\n43 Extradition Act 2003, s. 128(3).\n\n1922623.1\n6\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002102",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-21 Filed 12/14/20 Page 7 of 29",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "An overview of the timeframes in relation to US extradition requests",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12. The timescales applicable to extradition proceedings are defined by statute and are set out in Annex D, along with the circumstances in which the time-limits can be extended.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "13. There are few publicly available figures with respect to the timescales in Part 2 extradition cases in general, and none with respect to US extradition cases. In July 2013, the UK Government estimated that, on average, Part 2 extradition cases took approximately 10 months to conclude37. In practice, contested US extradition cases can take longer than 10 months, although the majority conclude within two years.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "14. These timescales are significantly reduced in cases such as this one where the requested person consents to his or her extradition at an early stage in the process. In those cases, extradition would be likely to take place within three months.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Consent to extradition",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15. At the initial hearing where a requested person is first produced before the court, the appropriate judge is required to give them \"the required information about consent\"38. This information is: (a) that the person may consent to extradition; (b) an explanation of the effect of consent and the procedure that will apply if consent is given; and (c) that consent must be given in writing and is irrevocable39.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "16. Where consent is given before the case has been sent to the Secretary of State, it must be given at a hearing before the appropriate judge40. Once the case has been sent to the Secretary of State, consent must be given to the Secretary of State41.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17. Where consent is given before the case is sent to the Secretary of State, the consequences are as follows:",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(a) If the appropriate judge has not fixed a date for the extradition hearing, they are not required to do so42;",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(b) If the extradition hearing has begun, the appropriate judge is no longer required to proceed with it43;",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "37 HM Government, Decision pursuant to Article 10 of Protocol 36 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, July 2013, Cm 8671, page 94.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "38 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 72(7)(b) and 74(7)(b).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "39 Extradition Act 2003, ss. 72(8) and 74(8).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "40 Extradition Act 2003, s. 127(4), (6)-(7).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "41 Extradition Act 2003, s.127(5).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "42 Extradition Act 2003, s. 128(2).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "43 Extradition Act 2003, s. 128(3).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1922623.1\n6",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002102",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "HM Government",
      "UK Government",
      "Secretary of State"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "US",
      "UK",
      "European Union"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "July 2013",
      "12/14/20"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 97-21",
      "Cm 8671",
      "1922623.1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002102"
    ]
  },
  "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."
}