Sparks fly in Dotcom spy drama

Kim Dotcom

Sparks flew today as lawyers and a judge clashed over what police and spies did, or didn't do, around last year's Kim Dotcom mansion raid.

The Crown was in the Court of Appeal attempting to overturn a High Court ruling requiring the top-secret Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) to reveal secret details of their surveillance of accused internet piracy mogul Mr Dotcom.

Crown lawyer David Boldt's assertion the GCSB had nothing to do with the much-publicised dawn raid by armed police was rejected by Dotcom lawyer Willie Akel.

Mr Akel asserted the GCSB was fully involved in the search warrant, to which Mr Boldt claimed the spy bureau had nothing to do with the original search warrant.

Mr Boldt claimed the GCSB information was "very limited. It yielded virtually nothing – it was just bland background information".

Mr Akel’s attempts to be granted disclosure of information provided by the GCSB to the police relating to the investigation appeared fell on deaf ears as he addressed Justices Mark O’Regan, Terence Arnold and Rhys Harrison.

In a heated exchange, Justice O’Regan questioned why Mr Akel had filed for full disclosure when all he wanted to know was the length of surveillance and to whom the disclosure was made.

“What we’ve been told by the Crown is we’re having a major delay and a major problem because a whole lot of secure information is having to be disclosed, which means the security council is involved and so forth," Justice O'Regan said.

“If the only relevant matters are how long was the surveillance for and who was the disclosure to, why are you asking for disclosure for the entire file, when you know that’s going to delay the proceedings by some time,” he said.

“It won’t delay the proceedings,” Mr Akel retorted.

“Why have you asked for it, that is the question. If you say it’s not necessary why are you asking for it?" Justice O'Regan asked.

“We considerate it is necessary,” replied Mr Akel.

Chief High Court Justice Helen Winkelmann’s decision in December not only allowed the GCSB to be included as a defendant in Dotcom’s case, it also allowed Dotcom to seek damages from both the police and the GCSB.

Mr Boldt earlier asked the court to look at whether it was even appropriate to combine a judicial review with a damages claim.

"If the damages claim doesn't disrupt, slow down or complicate the review, it might be okay," Mr Boldt said.

The Crown was still anxious to appeal last June's ruling that the raid on Dotcom's Coatesville mansion was unlawful, but had not yet had time to do so, he said.

The appeal is continuing.

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about My Tags

Post Comment

9 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

Sounds like the Crown has finally got a sympathetic bench in Justices Mark O’Regan, Terence Arnold and Rhys Harrison.

Sympathy towards the govt misdeeds by the courts is not a new phenomena by any means, though.


Lets hope we finally do have a 'sympathetic bench' the inimitable words of Lance Corporal Jones, "they don't like it up 'em"


Its the old boy network vs the girl. Guess who will win..??


These 3x justices have a real problem. This case is not the only trial taking place but also their own public credibility is on the line. The privileged few don't like the media and public watching them.
Bring back the privy council.


Agreed, and if my understanding of a Radio NZ report Dotcom's lawyer told the bench the spy agency, having been economical with the truth perhaps by implication, had still not revealed all relevant facts and may therefore present perjured evidence, hence the request for all of their files. Should the court rule in favour of the spy agency without credible evidence that the agency is telling the whole truth the court itself will become discredited in the public's perception and start the slide down a slippery slope.


Will go a step further (SC) regardless of the result.


The Crooked Crown IS discredited, but why are govt officials who are breaching the public trust not criminally charged when their offences are far more significant and serious than anything Dotcom or the Tuhoe people ever did?
As bogus as NZ's 'green' myth, the corruption myth, has not been exploded because the Crown evidently refuses to prosecute wrongdoings by its personnel.
That is called 'perverting the course of justice'.
If Grant Wormald had been charged and dismissed for his criminal activities on behalf of the Crown in the Tuhoe raids he would not have been in a position to commit further crimes against Dotcom and who knows else.
But, of course, the dumbed-down 'masses' of NZ believe the Crown's lies and there appears to be zero accountability...


Our so-called justice system is already damaged by judges' poor performance.
Chief Justice should spend her time looking after her own area.


Too much damage has already been done to New Zealand by political and police bumbling in the Dotcom case.
Would those in power please desist from doing even more damage.


Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot


Sym Price Change
USD 0.7733 -0.0013 -0.17%
AUD 0.9501 -0.0003 -0.03%
EUR 0.6313 -0.0023 -0.36%
GBP 0.4955 -0.0002 -0.04%
HKD 5.9975 -0.0098 -0.16%
JPY 92.7030 0.1190 0.13%


Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1195.4 -2.890 2014-12-19T00:
Oil Brent 61.4 1.580 2014-12-19T00:
Oil Nymex 57.1 2.910 2014-12-19T00:
Silver Index 16.0 0.096 2014-12-19T00:


Symbol Open High Last %
NZX 50 5527.8 5553.7 5527.8 0.25%
NASDAQ 4759.0 4779.2 4765.4 0.20%
DAX 9827.3 9924.0 9787.0 0.81%
DJI 17812.2 17911.6 17804.8 0.49%
FTSE 6545.3 6620.9 6545.3 0.48%
HKSE 23264.0 23478.9 23116.6 1.26%
NI225 17685.5 17692.6 17621.4 0.08%