Earlier this year, his honour Justice Mellor of the UK High Court made findings that Dr Craig Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto in proceedings that were brought by COPA, an alliance of technology companies that have interests in bitcoin BTC. He has just made final orders which impose certain obligations on Dr Wirght. This has set the appeal clock ticking, as an appeal must be made by 5 August 2024.
We have previously reported on how the Satoshi Nakamoto case had a strange outcome in which his honour Justice Mellor in [2024] EWHC 1198 (Ch) relied on some pretty shifty expert evidence and some less than inspired analysis of witness evidence which somehow found all of Craig Wright’s witnesses to have no credibility, and those of COPA to be unimpeachable. He remarks on the possibility that Craig Wright could be the victim of a number of conspiracies against him yet ignores the corporate sabotage inflicted by Mr X in relation to these unfortunate coincidences, even though Mr X has since received a jail sentence in absentia
The Judgement itself is on no reasonable analysis just. Dr Craig Wright has been bashed up in public by a public official who has ignored basic principles of legal analysis and the prior fair history of the English courts. Further to this he has then proceeded to deliver a further humiliation by forcing Dr Criag Wright to post a message on his twitter and website stating among other things that he is not Satoshi Nakamoto.
CSW has apparently sacked his trial lawyers Shoesmiths, and engaged lawyers Harcus Parker for his appeal. It is clear that they have a wide array of points to argue that should lead to a successful appeal.
Here are some potential grounds for appeal that may be focused on:
Potential Grounds for Appeal
| Bias in Evidence Evaluation | Argue that the judge applied different standards to the evaluation of witnesses for COPA and Craig Wright, resulting in an unfair assessment of credibility. |
| Procedural Fairness | Craig Wright was not afforded realistic time to prepare his case once it became clear that he had been a victim of corporate espionage by Mr X. Which necessitated him getting a new team of lawyers at a late stage as his lawyers were chosen by Mr X. Which caused him a forensic disadvantage in forcing him to rely on an incompetent expert who had been chosen by the same Mr X. The extensive involvement of COPA’s legal team in preparing Mr. Madden’s expert report was improper as this compromised the independence and objectivity of the expert evidence. Dr. Wright was not given a fair opportunity to address or refute the expert findings due to being forced to rely on an incompetent expert that was not chosen by him or his trial lawyers. |
| Errors in Fact Finding | Errors or oversights in the judge’s assessment of the authenticity of the documents presented by Dr. Wright. Additional expert testimony may be possibly used to challenge the forensic findings. Fresh expert evidence may be used to present a more detailed and comprehensive explanation of the technical issues and complexities outlined in Dr. Wright’s evidence. |
| Legal Misinterpretation | The Burden of proof was applied differently to COPA witnesses as opposed to Dr Wright’s witnesses. The credibility assessments were not made based on legal principles. The evaluation of expert evidence was not based on legal principles. The relevance and weight given to evidence or testimonies that were detrimental to Dr. Wright’s case should be challenged. |
| Fresh evidence | New forensic analysis Expert testimony Documentary evidence that supports Dr. Wright’s claims. |