Commissioner of Police v Dotcom

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Justice Courtney delivered a results judgment on 18 April 2015 in the matter of Commissioner of Police v Dotcom. The applicant, the Commissioner of Police, sought to vary restraining orders registered under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 (MACMA) in respect of assets belonging to the first respondent, Kim Dotcom, including government bonds. The case involved multiple respondents and interested parties, including film corporations. The court's task was to decide whether to allow Mr Dotcom access to the balance of his restrained government bonds to meet his living and legal expenses, as well as to address the recent application by the Commissioner to register a foreign forfeiture order over the restrained assets.

The court considered the implications of the restraining orders expiring and the Commissioner's application to register a foreign forfeiture order. It was noted that the restraining orders would expire on the day of the judgment, and that the reasons for the decision would follow in the coming week. The court had previously varied the restraining orders to allow Mr Dotcom to use up to $700,000 worth of the government bonds for immediate living and legal expenses. The current application sought to allow access to the balance of the bonds. The court also had to consider the impact of the film studios' interim freezing order in the civil proceedings, which provided protection pending determination of the registration application.

Justice Courtney concluded that the preferable course of action was to deliver a results judgment, determining the application to vary the restraining orders prior to their expiration. The court ordered that the restraining orders be further varied to allow Mr Dotcom access to the balance of the government bonds currently restrained to meet reasonable living expenses and legal expenses. The court also decided to continue the regime established by Potter J for supervising the payment of legal fees by Mr Galbraith QC. The reasons for this decision were to be provided in the coming week, and the Registry was asked to arrange a telephone conference with counsel to discuss the proposed consent orders.