Clarifying copyright offences on the internet

Just as I was wondering when our Supreme Court’s decision in Ortmann v United States of America [2020] NZSC 120 would be delivered, here it is today! You can’t be quicker than that.

 

Some people grumble at how rich people clog up the courts with their interminable litigation, but I don’t. We have had a lot of legal issues decided in these proceedings, simplifying the law for future would-be litigants.

 

Most of these proceedings are concerned with the law of copyright and its application in the digital, and specifically, internet, environment. Largely fit for purpose, at least in the context of the issues in this case.

 

The Supreme Court decision held that as far as the substantive law is concerned, the way here is clear for an order for surrender for extradition on nearly all of the charges. As far as procedural law is concerned – and there can’t be a finding of eligibility for surrender if the procedure by which that determination was made was faulty, unless the faults were inconsequential – there is more to be decided, and more submissions from counsel were called for.

 

Some alleged procedural failures had been targeted when the District Court decision went on review to the High Court ([2017] NZHC 189): a failure of the judge to give reasons, peremptory dismissal of applications, criticism of failure of the defendants to prove matters when no opportunity had been given, failure to address an application for stay of proceedings, the jurisdiction to consider stay applications, and the test for abuse of process and stay applications. On appeal, the Court of Appeal ([2018] NZCA 233) said most of these issues were considered in the substantive appeal, but to the extent that they remained procedurally relevant on review they were without merit. However, the Supreme Court needed to decide whether the procedural challenges remained live issues, and if so, in which court – Court of Appeal or Supreme Court - they should be heard.

 

It seems ([588]) that review issues remaining may include procedural unfairness and breach of natural justice, errors of fact, unreasonableness, application for a stay of proceedings, and the residual discretion to intervene arising from cumulative errors.

Update 22 February 2021: The Supreme Court remitted the case to the Court of Appeal, to determine what the issues were and to decide them: Ortmann v United States of America [2021] NZSC 9.

Update 12 July 2021: The Court of Appeal determined that there were no outstanding issues: Ortmann v United States of America [2021] NZCA 310. 

Inquiring into alleged juror bias

When and to what extent should an appellate court, on an appeal against conviction, inquire into an allegation that a juror was biased? Should an appellate court hear the evidence of the juror and allow cross-examination?

 

These issues of principle were decided in Rolleston v R [2020] NZSC 113 (reasons judgment delivered on 19 October 2020).

 

If the power to order an inquiry is not specifically provided for by statute, the court has inherent power to address irregularities in its process by such means as may be necessary in the interests of justice (at [20]).

 

Because of statutory limitation, evidence may not be given about the deliberations of a jury (intrinsic evidence), except in exceptional circumstances giving compelling reason to allow such evidence: Evidence Act 2006, s 76(1). This is the “secrecy rule”, discussed at [22]-[27].

 

However, extrinsic evidence (that is, evidence not involving the actual deliberations of the jury) will be admissible if it is evidence of disqualifying juror conduct or knowledge (at [29]).

 

An inquiry into whether one juror’s attitude to the defendant may have affected other jurors would be an inquiry into intrinsic jury deliberations and would need to clear the high threshold in s 76(3): see [31].

 

Whether an inquiry should be conducted depends on the interests of justice, which depend on the circumstances of the trial and the various fair trial safeguards to ensure a fair trial (at [34], the safeguards are summarised at [36]-[40]).

 

Allegations that, if true, would be inconsequential, trivial, or irrelevant, or that relate to evidence that would be inadmissible, are insufficient to require an inquiry (at [42]). Further, a conservative approach to ordering an inquiry may be appropriate to protect jurors from fishing expeditions unsupported by credible evidential narrative (at [43]).

 

But an inquiry will generally be in the interests of justice where allegations relate to extrinsic evidence and are sufficiently credible to suggest an inquiry could reasonably establish that there has been a miscarriage of justice (at [44]).

 

On the facts here an inquiry was appropriate ([47]). The authorities are unclear on whether, if bias was established, it would necessarily have infected the whole jury (at [48], but Glazebrook J held that it would have: [77]). In any event, the inquiry here, conducted by senior counsel who interviewed and obtained a signed statement from the juror, did not disclose any bias.

 

Cross-examination of a juror may be justified, but leave to cross-examine will be rarely given (at [60]). The interests of justice will again be the criterion, and cross-examination may be necessary where an inquiry is for some reason insufficient. For example, the credibility of the juror’s account may be directly in issue (at [61]), but that was not the case here.

 

Counsel’s report did not contain anything to suggest the juror’s statement may have been unreliable, and there was no real conflict on the essential questions (here: the juror was staring at the defendant's brother who was in the public gallery for most of the trial; the juror had been bullied at school three years earlier by the defendant’s brother). The juror’ statement and the brother’s affidavit were in agreement, but the juror said that during the trial he did not remember the bullying (at [63]). He did not associate the bully with the defendant. An independent observer, knowing all this, would not perceive a realistic possibility that the juror was not impartial (at [68]). There was no good reason to require that the juror be cross-examined (at [69]).