New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Wilful blindness

Legal area

Court

27 Sept 2023

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v MCENIRNEY & ORS [2023] NZHC 2697

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2697
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the property and ASB funds were tainted by proceeds of the defendant's significant criminal activity; forensic bank analysis, unexplained deposits, travel and physical evidence at the home established at least constructive knowledge by the spouse (wilful blindness), so s66 relief is refused; however s67 discretion and proportionality require mitigating relief so the wife is awarded an 8.33% untainted interest in the family home while the remainder vests in the Crown.
31 Jul 2023

PHAN v R [2023] NZHC 2009

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2009
Court

High Court

The High Court held the District Court's four-year global starting point was excessive because it relied on inferences not supported by the summary of facts; set a revised starting point of three years for totality, applied discounts of 15% for a guilty plea, 20% for personal circumstances (including childcare and family violence) and 5% for mitigating background factors yielding an effective custodial equivalent of about 21–22 months, and substituted an 11‑month electronically monitored home detention term because imprisonment would be disproportionately severe for the offender and her depen…
21 Jul 2022

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v ROSS [2022] NZHC 1757

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1757
Court

High Court

Second respondent's convictions and detailed SARU forensic accounting established unlawful benefit from significant criminal activity of at least $350,000 which respondents failed to rebut on the balance of probabilities; third respondent failed to establish undue hardship and was found to have been wilfully blind to cash flows through his accounts; accordingly a profit forfeiture order for a recoverable amount of $350,000 is appropriate and the Sefton property (subject to mortgage) and $2,800 cash are to be realised; exclusion applications dismissed.
17 Jun 2020

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v IRWIN [2020] NZHC 1370

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1370
Court

High Court

The Court granted a profit forfeiture order for $793,067.33 under s55; found that Thomas Irwin held an equitable interest in $84,269.73 (life insurance proceeds) held on trust and ordered that amount severed and paid to him under ss66 and 68; found the Commissioner had not proven social welfare fraud to meet s6 threshold; dismissed Priscilla Drummond's s66 application because she unlawfully benefited (wilful blindness) from the respondent's significant drug dealing and therefore was not entitled to relief; vested the remainder in the Crown under control of the Official Assignee.
18 Jul 2019

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v YIM [2019] NZHC 1681

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1681
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the respondents were involved in significant criminal activity (drug importation and supply, money laundering and tax evasion), that the restrained assets and funds were derived from that activity and therefore 'tainted property', and that both respondents unlawfully benefited within the statutory period; assets forfeiture orders were required and a profit forfeiture order (net, after deductions) was to be made for approximately NZD 133,000; claims of undue hardship and the evidentiary objections to the contested hearsay exhibits were rejected.
22 Nov 2018

JIRI KUPEC v R [2018] NZSC 113

Citation

[2018] NZSC 113
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Cameron formulation correctly captures the subjective elements of the offence and requires no reconsideration, the trial judge's conduct did not prevent the applicant from advancing his defence nor cause a miscarriage of justice, and the directions on the out-of-court statement were orthodox and sufficient.
19 Sept 2018

KUPEC v R [2018] NZCA 377

Citation

[2018] NZCA 377
Court

Court of Appeal

The Supreme Court's decision in Cameron governs: recklessness suffices for mens rea in importation offences that do not require actual knowledge; the Court of Appeal correctly applied Cameron, the trial judge's jury directions and in‑chambers ruling were correct, the DVD directions were adequate, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
12 Sept 2018

BEAVEN v R [2018] NZHC 2401

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2401
Court

High Court

The High Court found no legal error in the District Court's assessment of wilful blindness or the initial 12-month reduction for lesser role, but admitted and relied on fresh evidence about the appellant's role as primary caregiver which showed the sentence was inappropriate; the appeal was allowed to reduce the sentence further for family hardship, making home detention available, and the appropriate disposal was to quash the 27 month term and substitute six months home detention (conditions per PAC report), with time served taken into account as specified.
13 Feb 2018

THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED v TONY WILLIAM RALPH [2018] NZHC 121

Citation

[2018] NZHC 121
Court

High Court

Summary judgment refused because plaintiff failed to establish that defendant had no reasonably arguable defence on knowledge or wilful blindness; defendant's credible affidavit evidence raising triable issues about his non-involvement in finances and absence of suspicious benefit meant inference of dishonest knowledge from payments alone was unsafe and determination must await a full trial.
11 Oct 2017

MCLENNAN AND VAN DELDEN AS LIQUIDATORS OF NEIL TIMBER LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V LIVAJA [2017] NZCA 446

Citation

[2017] NZCA 446
Court

Court of Appeal

The appellants failed to establish a reasonably arguable case that the trustees were wilfully blind or had the requisite knowledge such that retention of the traced funds was unconscionable in a manner enforceable by the liquidators; further, breaches of obligations owed to a third party (the Official Assignee) cannot be relied on by liquidators to found a knowing receipt claim against the trustees of the acquired property, so the caveat could not be maintained.