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
    Lauriel (profile), 7 Aug 2012 @ 12:28pm

    Re: Re:

    Does raiding someone's birthday party shows the full extent of their tactical capabilities? If I were them, I'd be concerned about that too!

    I actually can see how the footage could be prejudicial - SWAT teams are aggressive by nature, otherwise they would have taken the civil approach and knocked on the door. Once you've got that many people, all on an adrenaline rush, trained to use force to neutralise a target... of course they didn't walk up to him and say "Excuse me, would you mind coming with us?"

    However, it's only prejudicial because they took an overly aggressive stance with Dotcom in the first place. They would need to show reasonable grounds to believe that the measures they took were justified, IMHO. I really don't see how they had reason to hit him with that amount of force to begin with.

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.