Dotcom v Minister of Justice - [2025] NZHC 2634

Application for judicial review of Minister of Justice’s decision to surrender Mr Dotcom to the United States to face charges associated with an alleged conspiracy in relation to Megaupload.  The decision was challenged on several grounds, including that the Minister erred in finding that no mandatory or discretionary restrictions under ss 7 and 8 of the Extradition Act 1999 prevented surrender in the circumstances, and that the Minister’s decision was unreasonable.  Mr Dotcom also challenged the decision of the Commissioner of Police not to lay charges against him in New Zealand, when his two alleged co-offenders had been charged and sentenced domestically.  The primary focus of Mr Dotcom’s submissions was that he would be subject to disproportionately severe treatment if surrendered to the United States, given the disparity between his likely sentence if convicted in the United States compared to New Zealand, and the disparity between the likely United States sentence and the sentences received by his co-offenders.  
Application for adjournment to enable further medical reports to be obtained and for Mr Dotcom to apply to the Minister for reconsideration of the Surrender Decision consequent on a medical event in November 2024, declined.  The application was sought on the same grounds as an earlier application and the interests of justice did not support an adjournment. 

Held: The Minister did not violate any mandatory restrictions under s 7 of the Extradition Act in reaching his surrender decision.  There was no evidence to support his allegations that the United States prosecution was politically motivated or carried out for an otherwise improper purpose, such as to appease copyright holders. Nor was there any evidence of bad faith or abuse of process on the part of New Zealand or United States officials.    Similarly, the Minister did not fail to take into account any discretionary restrictions on surrender under s 8.  Mr Dotcom’s claim that he would face disproportionately severe treatment if surrendered was not made out, as his likely sentence in the United States would not be so severe as to shock the conscience of properly informed New Zealanders, nor did it amount to an irreducible life sentence.  Nor was the Minister’s decision unreasonable on this basis.  
The Commissioner’s decision not to prosecute Mr Dotcom in New Zealand was a proper exercise of the Police’s discretion.  There were different circumstances that applied to Mr Dotcom compared to his alleged co-offenders, for instance that they had offered to plead guilty to the New Zealand charges in exchange for providing assistance in the United States’ prosecution of Mr Dotcom.  There was no suggestion the Commissioner was biased or unreasonable in reaching that decision.  Furthermore, the Minister was entitled to rely on the Police’s explanation for that decision in determining whether Mr Dotcom should be surrendered.   

Application for judicial review declined.