INTHEHIGHCOURTOFNEWZEALANDAUCKLANDREGISTRYCIV-2012-404-1928[2012}NZHC1494
UNDERtheJudicatureAmendmentAct1972INTHEMATTEROFanapplicationforjudicialreviewandapplicationfororderforinterimreliefpursuanttosection8BETWEENKIMDOTCOMFirstPlaintiffANDFINNBATATOSecondPlaintiffANDMATHIASORTMANNThirdPlaintiffANDBRAMVANDERKOLKFourthPlaintiffANDATTORNEY-GENERALFirstDefendantANDTHEDISTRICTCOURTATNORTHSHORESecondDefendantHearing:22and23May,6June2012Counsel:PDavisonQC(22
&
23Mayonly),WAkelandRWoodsforFirstPlaintiffGJFoleyforSecond,Third
&
FourthPlaintiffsMRuffin(22and23Mayonly),FSinclairforFirstDefendant
(joined
incapacityasrepresentativeofNewZealandPolice)JPikeandAToohey(6Juneonly)forFirstDefendant(joinedincapacityastheCentralAuthorityforthepurposesoftheMutualAssistanceinCriminalMattersAct1992)
JUDGMENTOFWINKELMANNJ
Judgment:28June2012
DOTCOM
&
ORSVATTORNEY·GENERALHCAKCIV·2012-404-1928[28
June
2012J
This
judgment
wasdelivered
by
meon
28
June2012at3.30pmpursuanttoRule
11.5
oftheHighCourtRules.Registrar/DeputyRegistrar
TABLEOFCONTENTSIntroduction[1]A.Werethewarrantsinvalid?(i)Factualbackground[9]Executionofwarrantsanditemsseized[20](ii)JudicialreviewofsearchwarrantsissuedundertheMACMA[27](iii)Istheoffenceadequatelydescribedinthewarrants[36](iv)Wasthereadequatedefinitionoftheauthoritytosearchandseize[51](v)Shouldconditionshavebeenimposed?[78]B.DidthePoliceseizeitemsoutsidethescopeofthesearchwarrant?[87]C.WastheprovisionbythePoliceofcopiesofdigitalfilestotheFBIunlawful?[90](i)Doess49regulatephysicalcustodyofanitemonly?[93](ii)DidtheplaintiffsconsenttoimagesofcomputerharddrivesbeingshippedtotheFBIoffshore?[98]Firstphase[104]Secondphase[118]Thirdphase[122]Wasthereconsent?[134](iii)WouldtheSolicitor-Generalhaveconsentedtotheshipment?[141]Summaryoffindings[144]Relief[145]
|