Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse has a tough decision to make.
He’s the man who’ll make the call whether to kick Kim Dotcom out of the country for lying about a dangerous driving conviction.
Thirty seven other people have been extradited for similar reasons.
Auckland University law professor Bill Hodge says the minister could look to those cases for precedent.
He says by lying about the incident, Dotcom has affected his ability to be trusted.
“Those are what goes to the heart of trust and confidence. At the very beginning of our relationship you (Dotcom) breached our trust and confidence by deceiving us.”
Bill Hodge says Mr Woodhouse needs to separate all the political turmoil around Dotcom from his decision.
I’d be interested in whether the 37 other cases were for similar convictions?
As Hodge says, the decision needs to ignore all the political stuff. Dotcom needs to be treated the same as if he was John Smith.
If the court rules the extradition request from the US is valid, then he should be extradited to stand trial.
But his failure to not declare his driving conviction should not be seen as a way to get around that process.
Not disclosing a conviction is a serious matter, but a driving conviction is different to say a violent or sexual conviction.