Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr. Craig Steven Wright

A contempt hearing should ordinarily take place in person. Remote attendance requires strong, evidenced justification, particularly where the alleged contemnor must give evidence and is located abroad. Personal convenience and unsupported safety concerns are insufficient. Evidence from a foreign jurisdiction by video link requires permission under that jurisdiction’s law.

Reasonable adjustments must enable vulnerable litigants and witnesses to participate fairly, but expert evidence must not become inadmissible oath-helping. In contempt proceedings, oral evidence and cross-examination should be confined to genuinely disputed issues. Apparent bias is assessed by asking whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there is a real possibility of bias, having regard to the facts and context.

The judgment concerned case-management issues before the hearing of COPA’s application alleging that Dr Wright had breached an injunction granted after the Identity Trial by threatening and commencing a new passing-off action against BTC Core and Square Up Europe Limited.

Dr Wright sought permission to attend the forthcoming contempt hearing remotely from Indonesia, relying on alleged threats to personal safety, autism spectrum disorder and procedural fairness. COPA sought directions for limited cross-examination. Dr Wright also alleged apparent bias based on the judge’s brief interactions with David Pearce, who was said to have links with COPA.

The court determined the appropriate hearing format, the scope of oral evidence and cross-examination, and the bias allegation.

1. Remote attendance. The application for remote attendance was refused. There is a strong presumption that a contempt or committal hearing takes place in person because it is a public proceeding concerning the administration of justice. Remote attendance may be justified in unusual cases, but requires compelling and evidenced reasons. The presumption applied with particular force where Dr Wright was to be cross-examined and had previously been found dishonest.
2. Video-link evidence from a foreign jurisdiction should be received only where the law of that jurisdiction permits it, either generally or by specific permission. The convenience of remote participation cannot dictate the hearing format. The alleged safety risks, travel plans and work commitments did not justify remote attendance.
3. Vulnerability adjustments. The court had to make appropriate and proportionate adjustments for Dr Wright’s ASD, but the evidence did not show that remote attendance was necessary. In-person participation could assist the court in monitoring and applying adjustments, including breaks, clear timetabling and shorter questions. Expert evidence may address the condition and its effects, but not credibility or truthfulness by way of oath-helping.
4. Cross-examination. The principal contempt issue could be determined by construing the injunction, analysing the New Claim and comparing the documents. Oral evidence was nevertheless directed on whether Dr Wright intentionally or recklessly breached the injunction, an issue relevant to sentence, and on whether he was responsible for removing a required legal notice. Those directions remained subject to the right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination.
5. Apparent bias. Applying the fair-minded and informed observer test, the court rejected the allegation. Two brief social or professional interactions with David Pearce, without close ties or a link to COPA, did not create a real possibility of bias. The fact that a judge had previously decided applications adversely to a litigant was not, without more, a basis for recusal.

First-instance case-management judgment. The judgment records that the Court of Appeal had rejected Dr Wright’s application for permission to appeal against orders made in the related Identity Trial proceedings, but gives no citation for that order.