Epstein Secrets

kely that she would be able to establish that any personal or family hardship that might be caused by the extradition65 should outweigh the public "Ahmad v United Kingdom (2010) 51 EHRR SE6, para. 105. 60 R (Bermingham) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2007] QB 727, para. 100. 61 Extradition A

atters), the extradition should not take place". 33. Although some of the conduct alleged in the superseding indictment is said to have occurred in Londonm, three of the `specified matters' are likely to weigh heavily against a finding that extradition would be barred by forum. First, it appears that th

kely that she would be able to establish that any personal or family hardship that might be caused by the extradition65 should outweigh the public "Ahmad v United Kingdom (2010) 51 EHRR SE6, para. 105. 60 R (Bermingham) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2007] QB 727, para. 100. 61 Extradition A

atters), the extradition should not take place". 33. Although some of the conduct alleged in the superseding indictment is said to have occurred in Londonm, three of the `specified matters' are likely to weigh heavily against a finding that extradition would be barred by forum. First, it appears that th

kely that she would be able to establish that any personal or family hardship that might be caused by the extradition65 should outweigh the public "Ahmad v United Kingdom (2010) 51 EHRR SE6, para. 105. 60 R (Bermingham) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2007] QB 727, para. 100. 61 Extradition A

atters), the extradition should not take place". 33. Although some of the conduct alleged in the superseding indictment is said to have occurred in Londonm, three of the `specified matters' are likely to weigh heavily against a finding that extradition would be barred by forum. First, it appears that th