Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr. Craig Steven Wright

The court refused an application by Dr Wright to attend a forthcoming committal (contempt) hearing remotely and ordered that the hearing be fully in person. The judge applied the strong presumption in favour of personal attendance at contempt hearings and considered authorities and practice governing remote hearings, including CPR 81.7 and Annex 3 to CPR PD 32. The judge analysed Dr Wright's asserted grounds for remote attendance—threats to safety and autism spectrum disorder (ASD)—and concluded they did not justify remote participation. The court directed that Dr Wright must give oral evidence in person limited to whether he intentionally or recklessly breached the injunctive Order by issuing the New Claim and whether he was responsible for removing a required legal notice from his social media account. The judge also rejected Dr Wright's allegation of apparent bias arising from his limited past encounters with a third party connected to COPA.

This judgment records case management decisions in advance of COPA’s contempt application alleging that Dr Wright breached an injunctive Order by threatening and commencing a new action (BL-2024-001495). The Identity Trial (in which the court found Dr Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto) and subsequent Orders are the factual and procedural background to the contempt application. COPA alleged that the New Claim was a circumvention of the Court’s earlier injunctive relief.

Nature of the proceeding: a CMC to determine: (i) whether Dr Wright may attend the contempt hearing remotely from outside the jurisdiction; (ii) directions for the contempt hearing including the scope of oral evidence and cross-examination; and (iii) an allegation of apparent bias against the judge.

Issues framed:

• whether a strong presumption for in-person attendance at committal hearings could be displaced by risks to safety or by reasonable adjustments required for ASD;
• whether the court should limit the topics on which Dr Wright may be cross-examined at the contempt hearing;
• whether the judge should recuse himself for apparent bias having met a third party allegedly associated with COPA on two previous, limited occasions.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions: the judge applied established authorities emphasising the presumption for in-person committal hearings and the procedural safeguards required for remote evidence, including the need for permission from local authorities when evidence is to be given from a foreign jurisdiction. On safety, the judge accepted that online abuse exists but found the evidence of specific, recent, real threats to Dr Wright’s safety insufficient to justify remote attendance; he noted many cited incidents pre-dated the Identity Trial and that attendance in the earlier trial had occurred without safety objections. On ASD, the judge accepted Dr Wright has a diagnosis but relied on the earlier joint expert evidence (Prof Craig and Prof Fazel) and their conclusions that reasonable in-person adjustments were available and had worked at trial; subsequent letters did not advocate remote attendance. Consequently the judge found in-person attendance necessary to ensure proper application of adjustments and to guard against the risks of remote evidence, particularly in a case involving previous adverse credibility findings. The court directed that Dr Wright give oral evidence in person confined to (i) whether he intentionally or recklessly breached the Order by issuing the New Claim and (ii) whether he took down the legal notice on his social media account. Finally, the judge rejected the apparent bias allegation because the few social interactions with the named third party were limited and did not give rise to a real possibility of bias.

The contempt application itself is to be heard in person on dates not publicised in this judgment; procedural directions were given for that hearing.

The court refused Dr Wright’s application to attend the contempt hearing remotely and directed that the contempt hearing proceed fully in person with Dr Wright attending in person. The court reached this decision because the asserted grounds (threats to safety and ASD) did not justify remote participation, both having been considered and found insufficient; the court also ordered that Dr Wright give oral evidence in person limited to whether he intentionally or recklessly breached the injunctive Order by issuing the New Claim and whether he removed the required legal notice. The court rejected the allegation of apparent bias against the judge.