Kim Dotcom's lawyer says the denial of access to his client's seized data has left him defenseless to fight extradition.
Paul
Davison QC says failure to provide relevant information taken during
the seizure of items at Dotcom's Coatesville mansion is an abuse of
process.
Mr Davison made submissions at the Auckland High Court today in response to Crown submissions on Tuesday about whether Dotcom should receive extra compensation and the return of seized items.
The hearing took place before Justice Winkelmann, who has reserved her decision.
Dotcom was not asking for disclosure from the authorities, but was instead asking for his own information back, Mr Davison says.
"The prosecutor seeks to take advantage of any means available to deprive Mr Dotcom [the means] to defend himself".
Mr Davison also asked for any irrelevant information to be handed back.
If
the seizure of the items happened in a domestic context without the
involvement of the United States government Dotcom would receive
clones of the information as a matter of course, he says.
The data would have remained in New Zealand to be reviewed for relevant information and not sent overseas, he says.
Because the information was shipped to the US for review it the defendants were not able to seek redress.
"[The defendants] are seeking to be in a place where a lawful warrant would have left them in," he says.
Dotcom
and the other co-accused offered to provide the encryption codes for
the data as part of a process of returning the information.
During
submissions on Tuesday the Crown suggested no harm had been done during
the raid because no one was misled about the purpose of the search.
Crown
lawyer David Boldt said anyone reading the search warrant as well as
the arrest warrant would know what the raid was about.
It was earlier found the search warrant used was too general and noted only a breach of copyright.
However
Mr Davison says Detective Sergeant Steve Humphreys, the officer in
charge of executing the search warrant, could not adequately explain to
Dotcom what the charge of racketeering meant.
Neither the police nor the defendants were adequately informed "so the documents didn't help either", he says.
Warrants
made sure both parties were clear what the scope of search was and what
could be seized, but the search warrant executed on Dotcom was so broad
it was "essentially meaningless", he says.
Items taken included keyboards and cables which were unlikely to have relevant information to the case, he says.
3 News
No comments:
Post a Comment