Police cleared over raids on Dotcom

RAIDS on Kim Dotcom’s mansion in 2012 have been declared legal by the Supreme Court.

Police executed search warrants on the properties of Dotcom and computer programmer Bram van der Kolk on January 20, 2012, seizing 135 electronic items including laptops, computers, portable hard drives and servers.

In June last year, the High Court ruled the search warrants were invalid because they were not sufficiently specific. In February this year, the Court of Appeal over-ruled that decision and found the raids were legal, but the FBI removal of electronic information seized in the search was an unauthorised breach.

Dotcom’s legal team appealed against that decision but it was dismissed by the Supreme Court yesterday, although Chief Justice Sian Elias dissented from the decision.

‘‘The majority of the court has decided that, although the search warrants were deficient in their description of the offences to which they related, these defects did not result in any miscarriage of justice to the appellants,’’ the Supreme Court said.

‘‘While the search warrants did not specify that the offences were against United States law, or that the offences were punishable by two or more years’ imprisonment, this did not cause any significant prejudice to the appellants.’’

Justices John McGrath,

Wil- liam Young, Susan Glazebrook and Terence Arnold all agreed the warrants for the raid were not unreasonably vague and general.

‘‘Undoubtedly, they could have been drafted rather more precisely,’’ they said in their written decision. ‘‘We agree with the Court of Appeal that the appellants were reasonably able to understand what the warrants related to and that the police were adequately informed of what they should be looking for.

‘‘Any issues relating to matters such as the way the search of the computers was conducted or the handling of irrelevant material should be addressed through other processes.’’

In dissenting from the majority, Elias said the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the warrants did not cause any significant prejudice to the appellants was wrong.

‘‘That conclusion is, I think, based on a mistaken view of what constitutes a miscarriage of justice in this context,’’ she said in her part of the written decision.

‘‘A search warrant properly issued would not have authorised the seizure of irrelevant material, at least not without setting up conditions to ensure secure and expeditious sorting under the supervision of the court. Where, as here, a search warrant was overbroad and no protective conditions were imposed, the relevant miscarriage of justice is complete.’’

Dotcom tweeted his dismay at the ruling, saying Elias had got it right.