📸

Is the subject currently armed? Yes

Has the subject expressed an intention to use lethal force? No

Has the subject issued threats to kill or injure? Yes

Has the subject a prior history of violence? Yes

Is the subject currently exhibiting violence? Yes

Is the premises fortified? Yes

Is there potential that policing action by members other than STG would reasonably be expected to result in injury or death to police, suspects or members of the community. Yes.

The answers to the questions weren't based on information sourced by the STG, the sergeant said. On the question of whether Dotcom had a history of violence, the team leader had nothing which could back up the claim. In fact, there was no information to back up the claim Dotcom was showing signs of violence. Ask the person who completed the document, he said.

What would you expect, Davison asked? If there was no threat, or recent signs of aggression, would the listing of those danger markings be misleading?

Yes, the sergeant answered — but "it was unknown what sort of response police were going to be presented with . . . There was some concern there would be the destruction of evidence," he said. Davison raised a reference to a threat of violence that a staff member had made against Dotcom. It would later emerge the "assault" was an allegation, denied by Dotcom, that he used his stomach in a "belly-butt" manoeuvre. Police had met with Dotcom, who rejected the claim, as did four staff witnesses.

Some concerns were self-evident, police asserted. The sergeant pointed Davison to an image of the tycoon posing with a firearm. It had been found online, where Dotcom had posted it after clay pigeon shooting a few years earlier. It was "unaccounted for", he said.

The document went on to state: "He is a man who buys items that he enjoys having possession of. It is assumed there will be firearms present on the property — either with Dotcom or his security staff." There was no evidence on which to base this assumption.

The entire raid was then classified as "low risk", noting the "remote possibility" security staff might intervene. The sergeant said the low threat level was a factor in the decision to "dress down" and "not wear full tactical kit", which included ballistic helmets and black coveralls. The "appreciation" document stated: "Given the international media interest this warrant execution may bring, staff will be dressed and interact in as (low a key manner as possible)."

Davison, questioning the appraisal document in court, raised

152

📸