The Court of Appeal has delivered its judgment in the high-profile case between the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) and Craig Wright. The man who was claiming to be Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. This sealed order, overseen by the Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Arnold, denied Wright’s appeals on multiple grounds. It ends up reinforcing the original findings from a grueling 22-day trial earlier this year. So we thought to list the court’s rulings and their implications.
Will this stop the BSV camp conspiracy theorists and CSW fans from speculating further? Quite unlikely. They are a tough crowd to please. But for the rest of us, there is no shadow of a doubt that this ruling, leaves very little to the imagination. If anything at all.
1. Extension of Time Granted
The court granted Wright an extension to file his appellant’s notice in case CA-2024-001994. This procedural delay stemmed from Wright’s initial notice in CA-2024-001771 being incomplete and a later notice in CA-2024-001994 being filed late. Lord Justice Arnold deemed this a “trivial and excusable breach of the rules” that did not prejudice COPA. This concession, however, had no bearing on the ultimate outcome, as permission to appeal was later denied.
2. Permission to Adduce Fresh Evidence Denied
Wright tried to introduce new evidence across multiple appeals, but the court applied the stringent Ladd v. Marshall criteria and dismissed all such requests. Among the evidence submitted were:
- Dr. Jones’s Affidavit: Rejected as it reiterated trial evidence and would not have influenced the judgment.
- Expert Evidence on DKIM (Email Authentication): Disallowed as it should have been produced at trial, and the email in question was already deemed a forgery.
- Draft Statements and Materials: These were dismissed for lacking credibility and failing to meet evidentiary standards. For instance, one document was described as “very much a working draft” and did not offer reliable support.
Lord Justice Arnold summarized the rejection by stating, “None of this evidence satisfies the criteria for admissibility on appeal, and much of it would not have altered the original conclusions.”
3. Permission to Appeal Refused
Both appeals in cases CA-2024-001771 and CA-2024-001994 were deemed “totally without merit.” The judgment, described as a meticulous analysis spanning over 1,700 paragraphs, conclusively found that Wright was not Satoshi Nakamoto. Key reasons included:
- Credibility Issues: The trial judge concluded that Wright “lied repeatedly and extensively to the court” and “forged a large number of documents.”
- Overwhelming Evidence: The evidence against Wright’s claims was described as “overwhelming,” supported by thorough cross-examinations and expert testimonies.
Lord Justice Arnold remarked, “The Court of Appeal is not a venue to retry cases. None of Dr. Wright’s grounds come anywhere near demonstrating that the trial judge’s decision is irrational or procedurally unfair.”
4. Addressing Wright’s Claims of Bias and Procedural Irregularities
Wright’s appeal featured allegations of judicial bias and procedural unfairness, which the court categorically rejected:
- Bias Allegations: Wright claimed the trial judge exhibited bias by misinterpreting evidence and favoring COPA’s witnesses. However, the Court of Appeal noted that these accusations lacked substance and that the trial judge had gone “out of his way to ensure fairness.”
- Procedural Complaints: Complaints about adjustments made for Wright’s ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) were dismissed, with the court highlighting that Wright himself had praised the accommodations during cross-examination.
5. Rejection of 59 Appeal Grounds
Wright’s appeal raised 59 grounds challenging the trial judge’s findings, which the Court of Appeal grouped into ten themes. Each theme, ranging from alleged misapplication of legal standards to improper handling of cross-examinations, was systematically dismantled. The court particularly noted Wright’s use of “fictitious authorities” and misleading arguments, labeling his grounds as “totally without merit.”
Community Discussions
The recent lively discussions in the run up to the appeal became a spectacular part of the saga. Somehow expert patent lawyer David Pearce found himself accused of colluding with Justice Mellor on the case. The ludicrous accusations, all around a statement by Pearce who once met Justice Mellor at a dinner. For those who are delusional of the relationships between legal professionals this is very hard to accept. That two people can meet but still uphold the ethics of law.
The fact that lawyers and judges mingle in private settings is simply a matter of life. It would be crazy to assume otherwise. This is very similar to how professional athletes of competing teams hang around together sometimes. The legal profession is no different.
David Pearce summed up the decision succinctly: “Game Over Craig.” Indeed, the court’s emphatic rejection leaves little room for doubt. Craig Wright’s legal maneuvers have hit a definitive dead end.
What’s Next for Craig Wright?
With the Court of Appeal’s emphatic rejection, Wright’s options for further legal challenges are limited. According to Rule 52.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, decisions on paper appeals are final, leaving Wright with potential, but unlikely, recourse to the Supreme Court. Alternatively, Wright could attempt to relitigate related issues in other jurisdictions, although this risks further financial damage.
For COPA, the ruling is a significant victory, affirming its mission to stop bad actors and protect open-source innovation within the industry. The decision not only reinforces the integrity of Bitcoin system but also finally completely discredits Wright’s claims to be its enigmatic founder.
The identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, the elusive creator of Bitcoin, is likely to remain as mysterious as ever. For now, we are all Satoshi, except Craig Wright that is.
Author Profile
- Lucy Walker covers finance, health and beauty since 2014. She has been writing for various online publications.
Latest entries
- April 25, 2025Global EconomicsWhistleblowers Unmask Schwab’s Toxic WEF Secrets
- April 9, 2025Global EconomicsTariff Tensions Drive Market Volatility
- March 18, 2025Global EconomicsRed in Name Only: Labour’s War on the UK Working Class
- March 7, 2025SatoshiCraig Wright Banned from UK Courts with Civil Restraint Order