INTHEDISTRICTCOURTATNORTHSHOREUNDERTHEEXTRADITIONACT1999INTHEMATTEROFAREQUESTBYTHEGOVERNMENTOFTHEUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICAFORTHESURRENDEROFPERSONSINNEWZEALANDKIMDOTCOM,MATHIASORTMANN,BRAMVANDERKOLK
&
FINNBATATO
Applicants
v
UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA
RespondentHearing:18May2012Counsel:MrDavisonQCwithhimMsWoodsforKimDotcomMrFoleyforOrtmann,VanDerKolk
&
BatatoMrRuffinwithhimMrWalshfortheUnitedStatesofAmericaJudgment:29May2012
DECISIONOFHISHONORJUDGEDAVIDJHARVEY[OnapplicationforDisclosure]
KIMDOTCOM,MATIllASORTMANN,BRAMVANDERKOLK&FINNBATATOVUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICADCNSD
Contents
Introduction[1]TheIssue[5]TheBackground[10]WhatisSought?[15]TheSubmissionsfortheApplicant..[16]Mr.Foley'sSubmissions[71]TheArgumentfortheUnitedStates[77]Discussion[114]Extradition[114]TheRecordoftheCase[131]CriminalProceedingsandExtradition[142]PowersoftheCourt[151]CommittalProceedings[154]OralEvidenceApplicationsinExtraditionProceedings[159]TheNatureoftheDecisiontobeMadeinExtraditionCases..[164]EngagingtheNewZealandBillofRightsAct..[192]FindingsuponextraditionproceedingsandtheapplicabilityoftheNewZealandBillofRightsAct..[213]TheIssueofDisc1osure[215]TheScopeofDisclosure[244]Conclusion[259]Appendix-DocumentstobeDisclosed.
Introduction
[1]In
R
v
SecretaryofStatefortheHomeDepartmentExParteDaly1
LordSteynconcludedhisjudgmentasfollows:"InLawcontextiseverything."Thiscasedealswithwhetherornot,withinthecontextofextraditionproceedingsandtherecordofthecaseevidencepresentationprocesstheapplicants,KimDotcomandhisassociates,areentitledtodisclosureofinformationheldbytheprosecutingauthoritiesbeitofageneralorarestrictednature.[2]MrDotcomthroughMrDavisonandhisassociatesthroughMrFoleyarguethatthecontextdemandsit.MrRuffinfortheUnitedStatesarguesthatthecontextinthisparticularcase,intheabsenceofanyidentifiedjusticiableissue,meansthatdisclosureisnotavailable.[3]Myconclusionisthatdisclosureisavailabletoalimitedextent.Thatdisclosureiscompletelycompatiblewiththecontextofextraditionproceedingandtheutilisationoftherecordofthecaseprocedureandinparticularwithinthecontextandfactualcircumstancesofthiscase.Myreasonsfollowandmydecisionisstructuredinthisway.[4]Icommencebyidentifyingtheissueandgivesomeofthebackgroundtothiscase.IthenidentifywhatitisthatissoughtbytheapplicantsandsummarisetheargumentsadvancedbyMrDavisonandMrFoley,followedbyasummaryoftheargumentsadvancedbyMrRuffin.Ithenmovetoadiscussionofthemattersarguedinthecontextofthelawandtheissuestobedecided.Istartwithaconsiderationoftheextraditionprocess,discusstherecordofthecase(ROC)processandconsiderthepowersoftheCourt,especiallywithinthecontextofcommittalproceedingsandwhetheranoralevidenceapplicationneedstobemadeinextraditionproceedings.IthenconsiderthenatureofthedecisiontobemadeinextraditioncasesandwhetherornottheprovisionsoftheNewZealandBillofRightsAct1990(NZBORA)areengaged.Ithenmovedtotheprincipalissue-thatofwhetherdisclosureisavailableasagainstthecontextualbackgrounddiscussed,considerthescopeofdisclosureandthenidentifythedisclosurethatshouldbemade.
1
[2001]UKHL26;[2001]AC532
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
