Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr. Craig Steven Wright

Hearing date: 18 December 2024

APPROVED JUDGMENT

This judgment was handed down remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email. It will also be released for publication on the National Archives and other websites. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 2pm on Thursday 19 December 2024.

THE HON Mr Justice Mellor

A. INTRODUCTION

This is my ruling on the liability aspects of the Application brought by COPA dated 23 October 2024 seeking to commit Dr Wright for contempt. The alleged contempts concern alleged breaches by Dr Wright of my Order in this action dated 16 July 2024 (‘the Order’).

In the Order I granted some wide-ranging anti-suit and anti-threat injunctions against Dr Wright.

In summary, the allegations of contempt concern Dr Wright threatening and then bringing a new claim BL-2024-001495 (‘the New Claim’) naming as defendants (1) ‘BTC Core (a partnership)’ and (2) SquareUp Europe Limited.

COPA allege contempt under 5 grounds which I discuss in detail below. Before turning to the 5 grounds, there are a number of preliminary matters I need to address.

B. PRELIMINARY MATTERS

Dr Wright's application that I should recuse myself

Logically, I should address this first.

In advance of the CMC hearing held on 27 November 2024, which Dr Wright attended remotely, Dr Wright filed a document entitled ‘Threats’ which contained allegations or insinuations of bias. I addressed those allegations in my judgment following that hearing and rejected the allegation, whether of actual or apparent bias, see [2024] EWHC 3135 (Ch) at [67]–[81], a judgment handed down on 6 December 2024.

At the conclusion of that judgment at [82] I also noted that the same allegations had been made by Dr Wright in his application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against my Orders resulting from the Identity Trial and which were rejected by Arnold LJ in the Order dated 29 November 2024 dismissing his application for permission to appeal as totally without merit.

Notwithstanding all of that, on 11 December 2024, Dr Wright filed two documents: first, a ‘Motion for Judicial Recusal’ and second, the ‘Affidavit of Gavin Gregory Mehl’.

I have reviewed these documents carefully. The content of Mr Mehl's Affidavit appears to be a mixture of (i) his experiences having watched some or all of the Identity Issue trial by remote link; (ii) things said to him by David Pearce in interviews which were recorded and available on YouTube; (iii) a selection from David Pearce's ‘live reporting’ from the CMC hearing on 27 November 2024; (iv) a quote from the Order of Arnold LJ dated 29 November 2024 in which Arnold LJ rejected the allegation of bias; (v) his account of a change.org petition ‘to investigate potential judicial bias surrounding Judge Mellor's and Judge Arnold's decisions’ which had apparently garnered over 700 signatures, including his allegation that Jack Dorsey had been responsible for the removal of that petition from the internet; and (vi) some quotes from the Judgment I handed down on 6 December 2024.

As far as I can detect the only relevant and material new piece of information conveyed in Mr Mehl's Affidavit was a screenshot from the X account of David Pearce, the link for which was provided at footnote 8 in his Affidavit. This showed a post from David Pearce from 27 November 2024 which reads as follows:

‘Mellor: I met him at the COPA event. He did ask about when the judgment was coming out. I did say I was aiming for May 9. Draft Judgment was sent out on May 10. I reject in no uncertain terms any allegations of bias.’

This post contained what I assume to be an unfortunate typographical error. The second occasion when I encountered David Pearce was at a CIPA event, as related in [80] of my 6 December 2024 judgment. It was not a COPA event. I have never attended any COPA event.

Although at one point in his Affidavit Mr Mehl appears to recognise the possibility of the typographical error when he says ‘On the change petition was a picture of David Pearce and Judge Mellor talking at the 2024 COPA/CIPA event’, later when stating his conclusion in which he sets out ‘several objective facts that raise serious concerns’, the event in question has solidified into simply a ‘COPA event’.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I have never attended any ‘COPA/CIPA event’, nor do I believe that any such event has ever been held.

Although Mr Mehl concludes his Affidavit by identifying ‘patterns that create a real possibility of bias’ I note that every ‘fact’ or ‘pattern’ on which he relies is exaggerated, sometimes grotesquely. In short, having considered all his allegations with great care, the best way to characterise his ‘Motion for recusal’ is that it amounts to taking 2+2, adding a great deal of unsupported supposition and making 256, in circumstances where the actual facts add up to 4 and reveal no hint or appearance of bias. I can give two examples of his unsupported supposition: first, the allegation of ‘ maintaining contact throughout proceedings’ and second, Mr Mehl's own confusion over the two events at which I have only ever encountered David Pearce: Mr Mehl asserts my account (apparently he is referring to what I set out in the 6 December 2024 judgment) ‘suggests a lack of candour, progressing ….from claiming attendance at a COPA event to later describing it as a Union IP event, requiring explanation in his written judgment’, whereas my judgment explains very clearly that the Union IP and CIPA events were two separate events some 15 months apart.

Finally, the fact that 700 signatures have apparently been added to a petition calling for an investigation into judicial bias provides no support for the allegation of bias, when the supposed signatories (assuming each of them exists) have not had access to the facts.

Accordingly, I reject, once again, the allegation of bias, whether it is alleged to be actual or apparent bias. I also certify that the allegation of bias was and remains totally without merit.

Dr Wright failed to attend the Contempt Hearing and proceeding in his absence

In the Order I made following the CMC hearing on 27 November 2024, I ordered Dr Wright to attend this Contempt Hearing in person, having rejected his application to attend by remote link, for the reasons set out in my 6 December 2024 Judgment. There was no intimation from Dr Wright that he was not going to attend the Contempt Hearing until he sent an email to my clerk timed at 9.39am on 18 December 2024, i.e. some 51 minutes before the hearing was scheduled to commence. In that email, Dr Wright asked that this message be passed to me:

‘While I fully acknowledge the seriousness of the court order requiring my attendance, I must inform the court that I do not presently have the means to be in the United Kingdom. While my current work commitments involve international travel, and while I have the ability to travel for work purposes, this does not mean that I can presently base myself in the UK or meet the logistical requirements to appear in person at this time. That travel is paid as a part of the tasks I do.

I remain committed to complying with the court's directions as far as I am able and respectfully request that my circumstances be taken into consideration. Should any alternative arrangements be acceptable to the court, I would be grateful to know.

Please let me know if there are any further steps I can take or any alternative measures that the court might consider in light of my circumstances.’

My clerk forwarded that email to me 2 minutes later, whereupon I observed that the email had not been copied to COPA's solicitors, Bird & Bird LLP, so I asked my clerk to forward it to them. They reacted swiftly, sending an email to Dr Wright at 9.54am offering to fund Dr Wright's travel costs for the journey to the UK, with reimbursement on production of a booking receipt. They also observed, entirely correctly, that Dr Wright would be able to fly to the UK to attend the second part of the hearing (i.e. on 19 ^th December) if he acted within the next few hours to secure a flight to the UK (whether from Singapore or Indonesia).

Dr Wright responded by email at 10.04am

‘While I appreciate COPA's offer to fund my travel costs post payment at some future time, I must respectfully note that this offer does not cover even a fraction of the true costs associated with my attendance. The offer solely addresses a standard-class return airfare but does not account for the substantial financial burden beyond this, including accommodation, expenses related to extended absence from ongoing work commitments, and other necessary arrangements.

Furthermore, this does not address any of the broader losses or disruptions incurred as a result of my attendance, which are considerable given the circumstances.

I remain committed to respecting the court's directions, but I must emphasise that this partial reimbursement does not resolve the practical challenges or costs involved in ensuring my presence at this hearing.’

He concluded that email by stating: ‘When I stated I could not attend on these dates, I was not making that up’ which appears to confirm he puts his business interests ahead of attending the Contempt Hearing and ahead of complying with my Order that he must attend in person.

Bird & Bird then responded at 10.12am, saying:

‘Dear...