From: Matthew
Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday
13 February 2025 11:46
To: 'Kelvin
F.K. Low'; Gerard McMeel KC; Lucas Clover Alcolea
Cc: Wilde,
Mark; Steve Hedley; obligations@uwo.ca; Daniel Seng
Subject: RE:
Bitcoin and Restitution
A1P1 is usually a pure point of law, so an
appeal court would generally – but not inevitably – let you take it. Only if,
for example, further evidence was needed in order to ascertain facts necessary
to decide whether the thing claimed amounted to a “possession” within the
Strasbourg case law would you have a problem.
Also, A1P1 generally imposes low thresholds
for state interference. Even if this was a deprivation case, rather than a
“control of use” case (and it seems much more likely to be the latter), there
is a clear lawful basis for the deprivation, and an obvious justification: the
state needs to be able to effectively manage waste disposal in the general
interest. It cannot have people clogging up the system suing for their property
back (or worse, getting injunctions preventing disposal of collected rubbish)
or much worse going round trying to dig up and recapture things they have
thrown away accidentally (or intentionally but with later regret).
That has the potential to paralyse local
waste management, which clearly has huge public health and safety implications.
I can’t see how this is a disproportionate measure given that public interest.
Best,
Matthew
Matthew Hoyle
Barrister
One Essex Court
This message is confidential and may be privileged. If you believe you
have received it in error please delete it immediately and inform the sender
immediately.
Regulated by the Bar Standards Board.
From: Kelvin F.K. Low <kelvin.low@gmail.com>
Sent: 13 February 2025 11:31
To: Gerard McMeel KC <Gerard.mcmeel@quadrantchambers.com>;
Lucas Clover Alcolea <lucas.cloveralcolea@monash.edu>
Cc: Wilde, Mark <Mark.Wilde@city.ac.uk>;
Steve Hedley <S.Hedley@ucc.ie>; obligations@uwo.ca; Daniel Seng <danielseng@nus.edu.sg>
Subject: Re: Bitcoin and Restitution
Dear
Gerard,
First,
given that his lawyers did not raise the A1P1 issue at trial, would he be
allowed to raise it on appeal? Given that his claim was also dismissed because
of limitation? I would think not.
Secondly,
I'm not sure that the jurisprudence is wide enough to cover information on a
tangible, as opposed to the tangible itself. Surely A1P1 covers the hard drive
but to stretch it to cover information on a tangible simply because the owner
of the tangible had terrible data backup practices (the claimant claims to be a
computer engineer which makes it even more inexcusable) seems like a terrible
idea. Consider a scenario where he had a backup which is only subsequently
lost, and his partner had taken the hard drive to the tip to spite him after a
lovers' tiff. Surely he would not be able to prevail against the council to the
value of the bitcoin even if A1P1 meant the legislation was void? I would
think therefore that even if he prevailed on A1P1 in respect of the hard drive,
the losses in relation to the bitcoins would be too remote.
Thirdly,
and I think most neutral observers think this: even if this somehow went to
trial, I find it hard to believe that he would actually be able to prove the
facts necessary to sustain his claim. In addition to being a lousy computer
engineer (no backup of important data), he's a lousy partner (too lazy to take
out his own trash), and at the very least gave lousy instructions (leading his
partner to take out the supposedly wrong hard drive).
In earlier
reports (eg https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/27/hard-drive-bitcoin-landfill-site)), he
admits:
""You
know when you put something in the bin, and in your head, say to yourself
'that's a bad idea'? I really did have that," Howells, who works in IT,
told the Guardian. "I don't have an exact date, the only time period I can
give – and I've been racking my own brains – is between 20 June and 10 August.
Probably mid-July". At the time he obliviously threw them away, the 7,500
Bitcoins on the hard-drive were worth around £500,000."
More likely
than not, his "memory" suddenly improved to fit the facts of his
claim. I mean, less than half a year after the hard disk was tossed, he
couldn't even be sure of the date it happened. Now, he's sure his ex partner
did it and it was unauthorised to boot. 🙄 Heck, do we even know (and I'm simply asking on the civil standard of
proof) that the hard disk is in the tip?
Cheers,
Kelvin
Sent from Outlook
for Android
Disclaimer
The information contained in this
communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by
the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been
automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber
resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security
awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities.
Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity,
human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a
more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.