IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CRI-2015-404-000429
[2016] NZHC 2043
UNDER THE
Extradition Act 1999
IN THE MATTER OF
an appeal on questions of law by way of case stated, under s 68 of the Extradition Act 1999
BETWEEN
MATHIAS ORTMANN
First Appellant
KIM DOTCOM
Second Appellant
BRAM VAN DER KOLK
Third Appellant
FINN HABIB BATATO
Fourth Appellant
AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Respondent

JUDGMENT (No. 1) OF GILBERT J

Introduction

[1] This proceeding involves an appeal by way of case stated and applications for judicial review of a decision of the North Shore District Court delivered on 23 December 2015 finding that the appellants are eligible for extradition to the United States to face trial on various charges including conspiracy to commit racketeering, conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, conspiracy to commit money laundering, criminal copyright infringement and wire fraud.1 These charges arise out of the appellants’ involvement with a company called Megaupload Ltd, an internet service provider which operated as a cloud storage and file hosting website.

[2] The case has been touted as one of the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought by the United States and it raises a number of issues of considerable public importance. The extradition proceedings, which commenced in New Zealand in January 2012, have also been complex. Some of the issues that have arisen have already been the subject of appeals to the Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court. The case has attracted significant public interest in New Zealand and overseas and has received widespread media coverage.

[3] At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Dotcom made an application for permission to allow a professional cameraman, Ben McAlister, to film the hearing and live stream the recording on www.youtube.com (YouTube). The application was made in accordance with the In-Court Media Coverage Guidelines 2015. Mr McAlister has filed an affidavit in support of the application detailing his qualifications and experience and providing an undertaking to the Court to comply with the standard conditions set out in schedule 2 of the guidelines and any other conditions imposed by the Court.

[4] The application was filed late and accordingly it could not be dealt with prior to the commencement of the substantive hearing on 29 August 2016. It transpired that media representatives, whose interests could be affected, had not been served with the application and it was accordingly adjourned until 30 August 2016 to enable this to occur. The substantive hearing commenced on 29 August 2016, as scheduled.

[5] The application for live streaming was recalled prior to the resumption of the substantive hearing on 30 August 2016. All media representatives present in Court advised that they supported the application. After hearing submissions from Mr Mansfield in support of the application and from Ms Gordon QC on behalf of the United States in opposition, I granted the application on the terms set out at the conclusion of this judgment. Rather than delay the progress of the substantive hearing, I advised that I would give brief reasons for my decision when time permitted. These are now set out below.

[…]

Full judgment: OrtmannOrsvUSANo1_3TH.pdf

© Scoop Media