Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 


Judgment on 'Record of Case': Dotcom & Ors v USA

[Judgment: SC_302013_Dotcom__Ors_v_USA.PDF]

Supreme Court of New Zealand

21 March 2014

MEDIA RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION

KIM DOTCOM, FINN BATATO, MATHIAS ORTMANN AND BRAM VAN DER KOLK v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(SC 30/2013) [2014] NZSC 24

PRESS SUMMARY

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It does not comprise part of the reasons for that judgment.

The full judgment with reasons is the only authoritative document. The full text of the judgment and reasons can be found at Judicial Decisions of Public Interest www.courtsofnz.govt.nz

The government of the United States of America has requested the extradition of Messrs Dotcom, Ortmann, van der Kolk and Batato to face criminal charges of copyright infringement, money laundering, racketeering and wire fraud. The charges arise out of the appellants’ alleged involvement in activities of the Megaupload group of companies.

For the purpose of the District Court hearing to determine whether the appellants are eligible for extradition, the United States has made use of the “record of the case” procedure for submitting evidence, which is provided for in s 25 of the Extradition Act 1999. The record of the case comprises a summary of the evidence that the state requesting extradition has acquired against the appellants, including: extracts from a large number of emails, data stored on servers supporting the Megaupload websites, a network analysis of how the websites operated, an analysis of relevant financial transactions, and the proposed testimony of investigators who undertook undercover activities as users of the websites and of a number of experts and copyright owners. The record of the case is relied on as establishing a prima facie case against the appellants, which is one of the requirements for eligibility for extradition.

In the District Court, the appellants sought disclosure by the United States of documents, records and information in its possession in relation to the criminal charges. A District Court Judge ordered the United States to disclose the relevant documents. The orders were upheld by the High Court, but then quashed by the Court of Appeal. The question in the appeal to the Supreme Court was whether or not the disclosure orders made by the District Court were wrongly made.

The Supreme Court has decided, by a majority comprising McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook and Blanchard JJ, that the District Court was wrong to order disclosure by the United States of the documents concerned.

McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook and Blanchard JJ have decided that s 25 of the Extradition Act does not require that a “record of the case” include copies of all documents it summarises. Nor does the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008 or s 102 of the Extradition Act impose obligations of general disclosure on a foreign state requesting extradition or confer on an extradition judge a power to order disclosure.

The majority has, however, held that a requesting state has a duty of candour and good faith to disclose any information that would render worthless or seriously undermine the evidence upon which it relies. As well, a requesting state must provide, in advance of the District Court hearing, the information on which it will rely to establish a prima facie case against the persons whose extradition has been requested. Where the record of case process is used, it is the record of the case that must be so provided. There was no suggestion that the United States had not complied with any of these obligations.

The majority has decided that the statutory powers, in the Criminal Disclosure Act, of a judge in domestic criminal proceedings are not incorporated into the Extradition Act and, accordingly, the District Court has no statutory power to make disclosure orders in extradition cases.

Finally, the majority has also held that the District Court had no inherent power to make the disclosure orders that it did in this case, because the appellants had not demonstrated that further information was necessary for the fair determination of their eligibility for surrender. The appellants already had adequate access to or knowledge of the information summarised in the record of the case.

The Chief Justice has dissented. In accordance with the views of the majority, the appeal has been dismissed.

[Judgment: SC_302013_Dotcom__Ors_v_USA.PDF]

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

 

Professor Ian Shirley: The Budget That Failed Auckland

The 2016 budget offered Auckland nothing in the way of vision or hope and it continued the National Government’s threats against the Auckland Council. Threatening the Council with over-riding its democratic processes if it fails to release land for housing is a bullying tactic aimed at diverting attention away from the fundamental problems with housing in the region. More>>

ALSO:

PM's Post Cab Presser: Budgets, Trusts And Pacific Diplomacy

Today Prime Minister John Key summarised last week’s budget and provided further detail about his upcoming trip to Fiji. He said that there has been “plenty going on” in the last couple of weeks and emphasised the need for Auckland council to facilitate more housing supply. More>>

ALSO:

Max Rashbrooke: A Failure Of Measurement: Inside The Budget Lock-Up

Shortly after the embargo lifted at 2pm news organisations started filing reports claiming that health, and to a lesser extent housing and education, were the ‘big winners’ out of the Budget. It failed to take into account the fact that in most cases the apparent increases were in fact cuts. Because of the twin effects of inflation and population. More>>

ALSO:

DOCtored Figures: Minister Clarifies DOC Budget

“Commentators have overlooked the fact $20.7m of that perceived shortfall is new funding for Battle for our Birds 2016, provided for in last week’s Budget...” DOC also has approval in principle to carry over a further $20m to 16/17 due to unexpected delays in a number of projects. More>>

ALSO:

For The Birds: Gordon Campbell On The Budget

Budgies, so their Wikipedia page says, are popular pets around the world due to their small size, low cost, and ability to mimic human speech. Which is a reasonably good description of Finance Minister Bill English eighth Budget. . More>>

Max Rashbrooke On The 2016 Budget

The best label for this year’s announcement by Bill English might be the ‘Bare Minimum Budget’. It does the bare minimum to defuse potential political damage in a range of areas – homelessness and health are prime among them – but almost nothing to address the country’s most deep-rooted, systemic social problems. Indeed the Budget hints that these problems may get worse. More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On Bank Scandals (And Air Crashes)

Last month, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) filed proceedings against Westpac over activities that have some distinct echoes of the Libor scandal. More>>

Budget: Health Funding Must Keep Up With Need

NZNO: “The nursing team has been doing more with less for years. It’s getting to the point that we’re really worried about our colleagues, our patients, our jobs and the level of health care available for people in our country." More>>

ALSO:

Emissions Inventory: Time For The Government To Do The Right Thing

It’s time for the National Government to step up and do the right thing to reduce climate pollution as data shows New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions are higher than ever, the Green Party said today. More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Politics
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news