📸

defence. It emerged, though, that the wrong type of order had been used. The Commissioner of Police Peter Marshall had put his name to a "without notice" order, meaning the money could be seized without any warning being given to the target of the order. For whatever reason, a mistake had been made — one which the police were aware of before the raid took place.

The correct order — and the only one which could be legally made at the behest of a foreign power — was one which would happen "on notice". It should have allowed Dotcom the chance to challenge the seizure of funds in court.

The steps taken to get the restraining order began early enough to work out any issues, it would seem. The US obtained its restraining order, and then made its initial request to New Zealand on January 10. The application for the restraining order to be registered was made on January 17 and granted January 18, the following day. The law, it was later heard in court, stated that if the person or company subject to the order had not had an opportunity to be heard in the foreign country where the order originated, then they would have a chance to be heard in New Zealand. Dotcom never got that chance, so was denied his day in court.

The error was discovered and discussed at the highest levels — Crown Law criminal team leader Madeleine Laracy said in an affidavit to the court the error was discussed with then-Solicitor General David Collins and his deputy Cameron Mander: "This issue had been overlooked prior to that point." It was intended the error would be fixed at a later court hearing, at which point the US filed a request on January 25 for a second restraining order, updated with new material from the Police. Faced with the prospect of willingly repeating the error, Crown Law told the court it had made the error but hoped to make good with a new request for a restraining order, filed on January 30. The Commissioner told the court the original order was "procedurally premature" and "may well be a nullity", but could be fixed with the new order which listed all the original items seized along with the new items. The High Court found "the Commissioner has confused the processes" when working out which sort of order should be applied for. An interim order was granted on February 1, continuing the freeze while the four men remained in prison without bail.

It wasn't until mid-March news of the error broke. By then, the New Zealand government was having to face up to the reality of its commitment to the United States. By law, the government has to give an "undertaking of liability" over the seizure — effectively nominating which part of the government would meet any future legal case brought by Dotcom and the others to recoup the losses suffered as a result. Effectively, it underwrote the United States case with New Zealand

📸