Usa v Dotcom and Others

• Jurisdiction: New Zealand
• Judge: Arnold J
• Judgment Date: 01 March 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] NZCA 38
• Docket Number: CA526/2012
• Court: Court of Appeal
• Date: 01 March 2013

Between

The United States of America

Appellant

and

Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann and Bram Van Der Kolk

First Respondents

and

The District Court at North Shore

Second Respondent

[2013] NZCA 38

Court:

Arnold, Ellen France and French JJ

CA526/2012

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Appeal against the dismissal by the High Court (“HC”) of the appellant's application for judicial review of a District Court decision which ordered the appellant to disclose documents to the respondent in an extradition proceeding — cross-appeal by the respondent against the HC decision that an oral evidence order was required before a witness could be called at an extradition hearing — appellant sought to extradite respondents under the Extradition Act 1999 (“EA”) for alleged breach of copyright via the Megaupload website — whether s25(2)(b) EA (record of the case) meant that the record of the case had to include not simply a summary of the evidence relied on, but also the documents which provided the basis for the summary — effect of s27 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (right to justice) and s102 EA (regulations).

Counsel:

J C Pike and F Sinclair for Appellant

P J Davison QC, W Akel and R C Woods for Mr Dotcom

G J Foley for Messrs Batato, Ortmann and Van der Kolk

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is allowed. The order for disclosure made by Judge Harvey in the District Court is quashed.

B The cross-appeal is dismissed.

C Costs are reserved. The parties have leave to file further memoranda if necessary.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Arnold J)

Table of Contents

	Introduction
Para No	[1]
Allegations against Megaupload and Mr Dotcom	[6]
Extradition
Background	[12]
Extradition Act 1999	[16]
(a) The relationship between the Act and a relevant extradition treaty	[19]
(b) Protection of human rights	[22]
(c) Different extradition processes	[27]
(i) Endorsed warrant process: Part 4	[28]
(ii) Commonwealth and treaty countries: Part 3	[30]
(iii) Non-Commonwealth, non-treaty countries: Part 5	[36]
Background to record of the case procedure	[37]
Nature of extradition proceedings	[40]
The judgments below	[46]
(a) District Court	[46]
(b) High Court	[48]
Evaluation	[49]
The NZ/US Treaty	[50]
The Act	[65]
(a) Section 25	[82]
(b) Section 24	[97]
Drawing the threads together	[104]
Relief	[110]
Decision	[114]

Introduction

1 This case raises an important point concerning the extent of disclosure that a court may order a requesting state to provide in advance of a particular form of extradition hearing. The background is that the appellant, the United States of America, seeks to extradite Mr Dotcom and the remaining first respondents (whom we will refer to simply as Mr Dotcom for ease of reference) to face charges arising out of their involvement in a group of companies known as the Megaupload companies (Megaupload). The essential allegation is that Megaupload, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, provided internet-based storage facilities to users and allowed them to use those facilities to share files in breach of copyright. Megaupload and Mr Dotcom are alleged to have committed criminal breaches of copyright in respect of films, television shows, music, electronic books, video games and other computer software. They are also alleged to have been involved in money laundering, racketeering and wire fraud, although these offences flow from the copyright charges.

2 Prior to the extradition hearing, which is yet to be held, Mr Dotcom sought disclosure of various categories of documents from the United States prosecuting authorities. Judge Harvey ordered disclosure. 1 (For ease of reference, the orders are set out in Appendix A to this judgment.) As can be seen, the orders are structured in terms 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 alleged infringement of the copyright interests”.

3 The United States brought an application for judicial review of Judge Harvey's decision, which Winkelmann J dismissed. 2 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 that an oral evidence order is required before a witness may be called at an extradition hearing and seeks to support her judgment on other grounds.

4 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, which enables it to follow an extradition process that is simpler than that which must be followed 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 the application (the extradition court). In essence, the record of the case is a summary of the evidence against the person sought to be extradited.

5 We have concluded, contrary to the views of the Courts below, that the exempted country regime under the Act does not contemplate disclosure on the basis

ordered. Accordingly, the appeal will be allowed. The cross-appeal will be dismissed

Allegations against Megaupload and Mr Dotcom

6 The United States' record of the case (including the supplementary record) is 109 pages in length and summarises the significant evidence that the United States intends to lead at the trial of Megaupload and Mr Dotcom. The detail of the record of the case is subject to a suppression order made by Judge Harvey, which continues in force. The following account of the factual background is accordingly brief.

7 Megaupload offered internet-based storage facilities for electronic files, which users of the service could share. It operated through servers located in a number of different countries. According to the record of the case, Megaupload presented itself as a “cyberlocker”, that is, a private data storage provider. Megaupload allowed access for three broad categories of users: unregistered, non-paying, anonymous users; registered, non-paying users; and registered, paying, premium users. It is alleged that Megaupload offered financial incentives to premium subscribers to upload popular files, so that a premium subscriber who uploaded such material would receive payments based on the number of downloads of the stored material. Specific examples are referred to in support of this allegation.

8 From an analysis of databases found on Megaupload's servers, the United States alleges that a small proportion (slightly over one per cent) of Megaupload's subscribers were premium subscribers; the remainder, it says, did not have significant capability to store content long-term. Further, it says that less than nine per cent of Megaupload's subscribers had ever uploaded material. It argues that this data indicates that most users accessed Megaupload in order to view and download content. It says that most of the uploaded files were infringing copies of copyrighted works and alleges that Megaupload “purposefully made their rapid and repeated distribution a primary focus of their infrastructure”.

9 The Digital Millennium Copyright Act was enacted in 1998 to provide internet service providers with a “safe harbour” from civil copyright suits (but not criminal proceedings) in the United States if they meet certain criteria. 3 The United States says that Megaupload provided an “abuse tool” to major copyright holders, which was supposed to enable copyright holders to remove infringing material from Megaupload's servers but which did not work as copyright holders understood it would work. In particular, it did not disable access to the infringing material other than to a limited, and therefore ineffectual, extent.

10 This is a much abbreviated summary. It will be clear, however, that the United States' case against Megaupload and Mr Dotcom is largely circumstantial. Moreover, it is strongly contested. For Mr Dotcom, Mr Davison QC noted that the United States' case is based on its interpretation of Megaupload's business model: the reward programme, the abuse tool and so on. He said that Mr Dotcom wished to challenge the United States' interpretation of the business model at the extradition hearing in order to demonstrate that the inferences that the United States seeks to draw are unfounded. In relation to the abuse tool for example, Mr Davison acknowledged that it was correctly described in the record of the case but said that when the reasons behind it were explained, Mr Dotcom could show that it was not part of an unlawful conspiracy. Presumably an extradition hearing of some weeks is anticipated.

11 There are two further features that we should note by way of background:

• (a) An Assistant United States Attorney, Mr Jay V Prabhu, filed an affidavit in the High Court outlining the law applicable to disclosure in criminal proceedings in the United States. He deposed that disclosure generally occurs after the defendant's first appearance in court. Disclosure will not be ordered until the defendant has submitted to the jurisdiction of the United States' courts. Further, disclosure will not be made to a lawyer who has not entered an appearance in the judicial district where the case is to be tried. This is to enforce ethical obligations. In addition, disclosure obligations are

  reciprocal. Mr Prabhu said that Mr Dotcom already has access to a significant amount of discovery material. He deposed:

  For example, the defendants have already obtained a copy of the databases supporting the Mega Sites, which...