Pubdate: Tue, 18 Mar 2008
Source: Central Leader (New Zealand)
Copyright: 2008 Central Leader
Contact:  http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3532
Author: Pat Booth
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)

HIDDEN WORRIES ABOUT HIDDEN PLOTS

Some landowners may be worrying unduly, it seems, over law changes 
now before Parliament.

Some - including absentee owners of isolated get-away-from-it holiday 
spots - might understandably be concerned because of unfortunate past 
experiences.

Like Bob Syron of Mt Eden. He owns a forestry block in Northland.

Unknown to him, it was hijacked at one stage by drug growers, a 
hidden pot plantation among undeveloped scrub at the back of his land.

He was able to destroy the crop and spray regrowth.

His reading of the new Criminal Proceeds Recovery Bill has convinced 
him that another experience like that could put him at serious risk 
because it seemed to him that, under the new legislation, police 
would be able to seize property without the owner having been convicted.

He believed other owners could feel the same way.

He also feared that the onus of proof would be on him to show that he 
had not played any part in the drug cultivation and was not a trader.

In a letter he describes the problem facing farmers, unlike police 
who can fly surveillance helicopters low enough for their rotors to 
part the growth canopy and reveal the plantations.

"I cannot afford the cost of that sort of technology and without it I 
can't investigate the scrub or what is below that canopy.

"The luckless landowner victims, who in most cases would not qualify 
for legal aid, would be unable to afford the huge expenses of proving 
their innocence."

Well, Bob, rest easy. When I went to the Ministry of Justice with 
your concerns, this was the response of a ministry spokesman. Cut it 
out and put it on your fridge door in case you need it as evidence in 
the future:

"The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill as drafted does not change the 
current law (the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991) on when the instruments 
of crime can be seized.

"Instruments of crime are property used to commit a crime, such as a 
farm used to grow marijuana.

"Under the current law and the proposed law, if police find marijuana 
growing on a farmer's land, the farmer would have to be convicted by 
a court of growing the marijuana before police could apply to seize 
the property.

"This means that the farmer's involvement in the criminal activity 
would need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

"In summary, if someone uses their legitimately-owned property to 
commit an offence, police can only apply to seize the property 
following conviction for that offence.

"The bill does enable the profits or proceeds of crime to be seized 
without conviction.

"Where a person is making illegitimate income from significant 
criminal activity, the bill enables those profits, or assets derived 
from that income, to be seized."

This has been labelled the "unexplained wealth" rule and is based on 
an assumption "on the balance of probabilities" - a good legal 
catchphrase and definition like but not the same as "beyond reasonable doubt".

The assumption: That the odd few millions in the bank, a garage full 
of high-performance cars or classic Harleys without a matching tax 
return come from the proceeds of a criminal career.

The Ministry of Justice is happy the bill is good law.

But it's fair to say that Bob Syron is not completely convinced and 
believes there is still scope for injustice to the innocent.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom