Clive Elliott KC: Barrister on the possibility of Kim Dotcom being extradited to the USA

Kim Dotcom may have his work cut out if he wants to stay in New Zealand. 

The tech mogul's been fighting to remain here for more than a decade, but time may be up with Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith signing an extradition order.  

It means he'll likely stand trial in the US.  

Barrister Clive Elliott KC told Mike Hosking a judicial review is the next step, which will look into the minister's decision. 

He says the court has looked at all sorts of angles, and believes Goldsmith is entitled to say Dotcom has had his day in court and should be handed over due to US treaty obligations. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
So the Kim dot Com saga finally coming to a
close or is it twelve years? And lord knows how
many millions and lawyers fees and appeals and headlines. Anyway,
the Justice Minister signed this extradition paper. So what happens now,
Barrister Clive elliotts, where's Clive warning to you? Yes, Monie,
have you followed nice and closely like I have?

Speaker 2 (00:16):
I've kept an eye on it, but it's been a
moving feast. So yes, I think I know what's happening.

Speaker 1 (00:23):
So as far as the Minister's concerned, there will be
a review or an appeal of something. Do we know
how that works, how long it takes and how long
this is going to drag.

Speaker 2 (00:31):
Out for well, I think a bit shorter than the
previous appeals. What will happen is that now that the
minister has signed the extradition order, I suspect that Kim
dot Com will seek a review of that decision. I
don't think you can appeal it because it's not a
court decision, it's a minister It's a ministerial decision. So

(00:52):
it'll be a question of whether it was properly executed.

Speaker 1 (00:56):
Is that part of the argument as to why he
will have taken the minister taken so long to sort
of tie it up in a nice bow so that
when it is inevitably reviewed, it's locked up.

Speaker 2 (01:06):
That's right. And I think the Minister made a statement
to say that he'd carefully considered the matter, which is
going to be the question is whether he had done so.

Speaker 1 (01:13):
And when you say carefully considered the matter, what's to consider?
The Americans want him. You got to kind of hand
him over, don't you.

Speaker 2 (01:21):
Well, basically, I mean he's been through ten years of
appeals and the court has looked at all sorts of angles,
and I think the Minister is entitled to say, well,
he's had his day in court, and were obliged to
hand him over under our treaty with the US.

Speaker 1 (01:38):
Exactly when you say he's had his day in court,
he's had his weeks, months and years in court. Is
there something profoundly wrong with the judicial process that if
you have enough money and enough lawyers you can pretty
much put off a day of reckoning for as long
as you want.

Speaker 2 (01:52):
Well, I think that's a valid question. Yes, I think
that's a very valid question. And but he is entitled
to exercise all of his appeal rights, which he's done,
and I think now the basically that the Minister has
to make a decision and he's done.

Speaker 1 (02:10):
So what I find interesting about it, apart from the
fact that's taken so long, is what I mean, you
can't answer this, but why is the Why are the
Americans so gripped by this?

Speaker 2 (02:19):
They cut a.

Speaker 1 (02:19):
Deal with a Sange? Why wouldn't they cut a deal
with him? Because I mean, do they need him that badly?

Speaker 2 (02:24):
Well? I think the I think the view that the
Justice Department has taken is that was this was topyright
infringement on an industrial scale and it was huge according
to their estimates exactly.

Speaker 1 (02:40):
And my humble opinion, correct me if I'm wrong. Clive.
What he always claimed was, look, I've got this vehicle
here called mega Upload, and what you do on it's
got nothing to do with me, so therefore you can't
ping me. That was the stupid still arguments, wasn't it.

Speaker 2 (02:52):
Well that yeah, that was his argument because he said, look,
I don't know what you're doing on the facility. Look
a nudge in a wink, I know you, I know
you infringing copyright, but that's your problem, not mine. And
I think the problem was that Mega Upload was notified
by the film studios that there was infringing content on there,

(03:15):
so they couldn't use the innocence defence any longer.

Speaker 1 (03:18):
Exactly, it's been an interesting story. The sad thing that
appreciated Clark Clarke Elliott case. The sad thing is this
is only a thing because he chose New Zealand. If
he didn't land in New Zealand, he was in Hong Kong. Remember,
he could have landed anywhere. If he didn't land in
New Zealand, we never would have heard of him. The
judicial process never would have been bogged down with them,
the government never would have been involved with them at all.

Speaker 2 (03:39):
For more from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news talks that'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.