When New Zealand authorities raided the estate of MegaUpload boss Kim Dotcom, they confiscated nearly £125 million worth of property. But as it turns out, the court order authorising this seizure was invalid because the police filled out the wrong paperwork. Oops.
Prior to the raid, police commissioner Peter Marshall’s office reportedly applied an inapplicable legal statute to the case and consequently filed for the wrong kind of restraining order—one that would have prevented Dotcom from properly defending himself in court. The police realised their “procedural error” on January 30th—after the raid went down—and refiled the correct forms while listing property already in their possession.
Basically, the police asked the court’s permission to do something they had already done. Presiding Justice Judith Potter is not amused. On Friday, she invalidated the initial (incorrect) order but did allow the new order to stand, though only on a temporary basis. The police are now arguing that despite the five errors on their initial filing, the the fact that the new order has been granted—and that they’ve already got Dotcom’s stuff—the entire situation is a non-issue. Dotcom’s defense team, conversely, is arguing that since the seizure was carried out using an invalid order, it was “unlawfully seized and restrained” and should therefore be released.
Justice Potter must now decide whether or not to actually return Dotcom’s property as the law in question does grant a degree of leeway for filing mistakes like these and the defense will have to prove the prosecution acted in bad faith. If she does side with the defense, Dotcom will likely dedicate obscene amounts of money to his cause—like dig up, reanimate, and hire Johnnie Cochran sorts of obscene money. [New Zealand Herald]













The Foxconn Reality: "Better" Is Still Bad
Maurice Sendak: "F*ck Ebooks"
Camera+: "VolumeSnap Is Back!!"
They should give it back. I have never supported police powers to seize property without a conviction and clear evidence of it being gains from illegal activity. And the burden of proof should be on the police to prove that and nobody else.
You do wonder whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty – if somebody can’t afford a decent defence lawyer because you’ve taken their money under the assumption that they’re guilty then there’s quite an obvious injustice.
Innocent *unless* proven guilty .. surely
Although usually you’d be right, i think in this case it’s probably ‘until’. And don’t call me Shirley.