Why Are New Zealand Prosecutors Seeking To Suppress All Images & Video Of Megaupload Raid?

from the seems-sketchy dept

As lots of publications are reporting, over in New Zealand, Kim Dotcom took the stand to testify about how the police treated him during the raid on his home as part of the international effort to seize and shut down everything related to Dotcom and Megaupload. I have no idea if the claims he makes of being kicked and punched and the like are accurate. I'm sure his detractors will question how trustworthy the testimony is. Frankly, I have no idea how accurate it is.

But here's the thing that I find most interesting. Buried all the way at the end of the Stuff article linked above is the following line:
The Crown is seeking for all images and CCTV footage from the raids to be suppressed.
To me, that seems like a point that should be made up top. If Dotcom is being inaccurate in his descriptions, then wouldn't showing the video and images that prove him wrong basically destroy all of his credibility and help the government with their case? The fact that they're trying to suppress that very evidence certainly lends credence to his claims, and (at the same time) calls into serious question the conduct of law enforcement during the raid.

Filed Under: details, evidence, kim dotcom, new zealand, prosecution, raid, suppression, video


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    G Thompson (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 9:32pm

    Re: Hate to be a party pooper.....but.....

    I'd say they are trying to make sure it is not given to the media, though you also have to remember that this is footage actually owned by DotCom himself and the Crown have really no jurisdiction to place a gag order on photos or film that was taken BEFORE he was formally charged/arrested.

    Though there could be a case under Recording Devices legislation if audio was involved (non dissemination other than to parties involved is a normal restriction within these legislations).

    If the footage was taken by LEO's than they have an absolute right to deny the media access to it, though it would still be probative evidence that any defence would require full access too whether it was being used by prosecution or not.

    Another reasoning a court might normally allow a release order (gag order) is if it could be shown that it could influence a jury pool one way or another. Impartiality must be shown. Though this ONLY applies to jury trials and in this instance a jury is not used in extradition hearings, or in any of the the other current matters before the NZ courts.

    For all those who state the media must be given this data please understand that criminal cases are not always open to the public, and evidence definitely never is. Different country diff rules.

    Personally I think this footage will surface no matter what the Crown and courts say.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.