breach of copyright. Megaupload and Mr Dotcom are alleged to have committedcriminal breaches of copyright in respect of films, television shows, music,electronic books, video games and other computer software. They are also alleged tohave been involved in money laundering, racketeering and wire fraud, although theseoffences flow from the copyright charges.
Prior to the extradition hearing, which is yet to be held, Mr Dotcom soughtdisclosure of various categories of documents from the United States prosecutingauthorities. Judge Harvey ordered disclosure.
(For ease of reference, the orders areset out in Appendix A to this judgment.) As can be seen, the orders are structured interms of the ingredients of the offences alleged and are widely drawn. For example,
order 1(b)(i) refers to documents “connected to, related to or evidencing allegedinfringement of the copyright interests”.
The United States brought an application for judicial review of Judge
, which Winkelmann J dismissed.
The United States now appeals
from Winkelmann J’s decision.
Although Mr Dotcom generally supports
Winkelmann J’s reasoning,
he has filed a cross-appeal in relation to her finding thatan oral evidence order is required before a witness may be called at an extraditionhearing and seeks to support her judgment on other grounds.
The Extradition Act 1999 (the Act) recognises different categories of jurisdiction, each with different requirements for extradition. The United States is a jurisdiction to which pt 3 of the Act applies. It is an exempted country, whichenables it to follow an extradition process that is simpler than that which must befollowed by non-exempted jurisdictions. Where it brings an extradition application,the United States is entitled to present a record of the case to the court hearing theapplication (the extradition court). In essence, the record of the case is a summary of the evidence against the person sought to be extradited.
We have concluded, contrary to the views of the Courts below, that theexempted country regime under the Act does not contemplate disclosure on the basis
Dotcom v United States of America
 DCR 661.
United States of America v Dotcom
 NZHC 2076.