Supreme Court appeal 'likely' over Dotcom extradition

Regardless of the outcome of Kim Dotcom's February 22 bail hearing [UPDATE: he was freed], both sides should pack a lunch.

A leading intellectual property lawyer says the real meat of the case - the extradition hearing - could take years.

Lowndes Jordon partner Rick Shera points to a UK-to-US extradition case (involving alleged hacker Gary McKinnon) that has so far taken seven years.

Here, the process could to be extended by the likelihood that the Supreme Court would be open to hearing the losing side’s appeal after the High Court reaches its extradition verdict.

There is no shortage of issues, and few of them are clear.

“This thing is all shades of grey,” Chapman Tripp partner Matt Sumpter told NBR earlier this week.

“The US might struggle to extradite [Kim] Dotcom to stand trial in Virginia,” Mr Sumpter said.

“The Americans’ main difficulty lies in the Treaty on Extradition between New Zealand and the United States. That treaty limits the range of extraditable offences between us and America.”

Copyright infringement isn’t covered by the treaty, Mr Sumpter said, and precedent suggested that racketeering was not, either – undermining two key elements of the US government case against Kim Dotcom and the co-accused.

“The relationship between the Extradition Act and our Extradition Treaty with the US, is complicated,” Mr Shera said.

Chapman Tripp’s Mr Sumpter could be right about copyright being excluded, Mr Shera said.

“The treaty does not specifically mention copyright. But there is also an argument that the Act creates a generic ‘extraditable offence’ and copyright fits within that.”

He added, “There are numerous arguments as to what is and is not covered. For example, the conspiracy, money laundering and racketeering charges, which might more easily fit with the treaty, all seem to rely on the underlying copyright infringement.”

Issues are piling up, and none of them are simple.  “The comparison between US and NZ copyright law would also be challenging," Mr Shera said.

Another head-scratcher: at face-value, the treaty only covers extradition from NZ to the US for a crime committed inside the US. Many of Kim Dotcom's servers were located in Virginia, but the giant German was demonstrably in New Zealand for most of the period of his alleged offending.

"It's conceivable that New Zealand could extradite someone to the US to stand trial for a crime that wasn't committed inside the US, but only if the New Zealand court would assert the same type of extra-territorial jurisdiction over the person for the same act; pretty rare," Chapman Tripp's Mr Sumpter said.

Where it all end?

“I’d think it likely whichever side loses (assuming resources) will appeal to the Supreme Court. Given the novelty of the case and the importance of the issues involved, I’d hope the Supreme Court would exercise its discretion to hear that appeal,” Mr Shera said.


  • "Dotcom's Kiwi haven," in today's print issue of NBR
  • Rick Shera on Media7

6 · Got a question about this story? Leave it in Comments & Questions below.

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

Post Comment

6 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

Who cares if the extradition takes years - provided he is kept in custody.

  • 0
  • 0

What with all the helicopters, guns, NZ police, Crown resources and all sorts of other palava dispatched to haul in someone who has a site where people can upload files... would almost expect the USA would expend some effort bringing some of the bankers who caused the financial crisis by selling toxic assets then betting against them to trial.

But no. That would be a little too much to expect. Both cases have the same root cause, I imagine: lawmakers essentially doing the bidding of lobbyists.

  • 0
  • 0

Shame on the NZ judicial for cow-towing to the pathetic Yanks . Remember Lange giving the Yanks the big middle finger. Now that's guts.

  • 0
  • 0

It's nice to see some sensible posts on this matter. This is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Where is the presumption of innocence?

  • 0
  • 0

He has not been charged.
He has not been proved guilty of a crime.
Why were his assets stripped.
This is fundamentally wrong

  • 0
  • 0

Once again we are witnessing typical USA bully tactics employing up to 70 FBI agents in Auckland to investigate a matter that was never engineered in any USA territory at all.These archaic extradition laws of the 70's do not cover cyberspace transactions when in fact computors that Mr. Dotcom uses today did not exist until early 2000 so how can FBI rely on such antiquated law and expect us to extradite a New Zaland/German citizen to the USA.What is Germany doing about this man.Perhaps simplest and typical USA action would be to invade NZ and take him along with many other USA un-wanted citizens, and BOMB some parts of NZ.What has happened so far is despicable, how dare the USA Authorities expect us to co-operate, smells very much like the British giving in over their man being extradited last weekend to the USA,who are these YANKS anyway, they do not and will not ever rule the "WORLD"

  • 0
  • 0

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 0.6890 0.0002 0.03%
AUD 0.9037 0.0002 0.02%
EUR 0.5812 -0.0002 -0.03%
GBP 0.5180 0.0003 0.06%
HKD 5.3812 0.0015 0.03%
JPY 76.7030 0.0820 0.11%


Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1290.4 -1.540 2017-11-23T00:
Oil Brent 63.3 0.770 2017-11-22T00:
Oil Nymex 58.0 1.170 2017-11-22T00:
Silver Index 17.1 0.150 2017-11-22T00:


Symbol Open High Last %
NASDAQ 6869.5 6874.2 6862.5 0.07%
DJI 23597.2 23605.8 23590.8 -0.27%