New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forfeiture of proceeds

Legal area

Court

21 Mar 2023

MCLEAN v THE KING [2023] NZHC 581

Citation

[2023] NZHC 581
Court

High Court

The District Court's finding that the cash was more likely than not proceeds of or held to facilitate drug offending was open on the material before it (summary of facts, guilty plea, affidavit and bank records); the appellant failed to provide corroborative evidence to rebut the inference; the Judge did not reverse the burden of proof and correctly applied s32(3) on the balance of probabilities, so the forfeiture order was properly made and the appeal must be dismissed.
10 Mar 2022

PORTER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 415

Citation

[2022] NZHC 415
Court

High Court

The High Court held the District Court's starting point of 3 years 8 months for possession of 23.5g methamphetamine was within range under Zhang because the offender's role fell between lesser and significant due to commercial indicators (cash, tick-lists, scales, cutting agent and firearms); a 15% discount for addiction and rehabilitative steps was appropriate given the evidence did not establish addiction as the primary causal driver; forfeiture of $22,000 was properly made under s32 Misuse of Drugs Act and did not attract an additional sentencing discount under s10B; no further credit for…
8 Jun 2021

R v COSSEY [2021] NZHC 1333

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1333
Court

High Court

Having identified a band two starting point of four years and six months based on at least 135.49g and the defendant's lesser role, the court uplifted that starting point by 15% for aggravating factors then applied a 60% discount for substantial mitigation principally the guilty pleas and personal factors, producing two years and ten months, and reduced that by six months for totality with a prior seven-year sentence, resulting in a final custodial sentence of two years and four months; forfeiture of cash seized was ordered and a community sentence was found not available.
18 Dec 2020

ROPITINI v R [2020] NZHC 3426

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3426
Court

High Court

The District Court failed to apply an appropriate discount for 334 days spent on recall which ought to have been taken into account in sentencing; applying established appellate practice (a 66% discount of time on recall in this context) and appropriate uplifts/discounts yields a sentence of nine months, thus the imposed 11 months was manifestly excessive and must be quashed and replaced; the presence of $2,900 could properly be treated as an aggravating factor given the accepted summary of facts linked the cash to supply.
30 Nov 2020

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v McIVOR [2020] NZHC 3149

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3149
Court

High Court

The court approved the settlement because it achieved the Act's purpose by forfeiting the overwhelming majority of proceeds, was in the overall interests of justice, and avoided disproportionate costs and delay that further litigation over the small remaining sum would entail.
19 May 2016

R v KAIHAU [2016] NZHC 1044

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1044
Court

High Court

Offending involving supply assessed at lower end of band 2 (treated as 25g) justified a starting point of 3 years 6 months imprisonment; allowed modest discounts for remorse (5%), severe disability (6 months) and time on EM bail (5 months) reducing to 2 years 5 months, then a 20% guilty plea discount reduced the custodial sentence to 1 year 11 months which the Judge lawfully commuted to 12 months home detention given the defendant's paralysis, family hardship and suitability for treatment conditions; $1,040 was forfeited as proceeds under Misuse of Drugs Act s 32(3).
13 Oct 2015

ROBERT GEORGE KEEN v R [2015] NZSC 142

Citation

[2015] NZSC 142
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because there was an adequate evidential foundation for the finding that the money was held to facilitate future drug purchases under s 32(3), the proper inquiry is the purpose at the time of seizure (availability to facilitate offences), and the proposed appeal raised no matter of public or general importance nor an apparent miscarriage.
16 Nov 2005

R V KUVARJI HC WHA S051000

Citation

openlaw-be3c9c52_6ac9_4443_85a2_e924f24f06be.pdf
Court

High Court

Imprisonment is the only appropriate penalty for possession for supply of methamphetamine with a starting point assessed at three years; after credit for guilty pleas and totality consideration the appropriate sentence is two years six months' imprisonment with lesser sentences to be served concurrently and $460 forfeited to the Crown.