Blackler v Police - [2013] NZHC 1003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-485-000088 [2013] NZHC 1003

BETWEEN SEAN ANTHONY BLACKLER Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 7 May 2013

Counsel: B J Hunt for Appellant
I R Murray for Respondent

Judgment: 7 May 2013

In accordance with r 11.5 I direct the Registrar to endorse this judgment with the delivery time of 4.50pm on the 7th day of May 2013.

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Blackler appeals a decision of Judge Hobbs delivered in the Wellington District Court on 27 September 2012, in which he ordered that $15,000 be forfeited to the Crown pursuant to s 32(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (the Act).

[2] I have decided to allow the appeal because I have had the advantage of hearing and considering significant evidence that was not made available to Judge Hobbs. Had I been required to make my decision solely on the basis of the evidence presented to Judge Hobbs then I would have reached the same decision as
he did.

BLACKLER V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI-2012-485-000088 [7 May 2013]

(1) traverse the background to the Crown’s application for a forfeiture

order under s 32(3) of the Act;

(2) summarise Judge Hobbs’ decision;

(3) set out the new evidence and why I have accepted it; and

(4) summarise my decision.

Background

[4] On 25 November 2011 Mr Blackler was sentenced to two years and ten months’ imprisonment for offences under the Act. Those offences included the supply of LSD, a class A controlled drug. Mr Blackler pleaded guilty to the charges against him.

[5] When the police searched Mr Blackler’s garage in Miramar as part of the operation that led to the charges, they located two bags in the rafters of his garage. Those bags contained $6,300 and $14,780 in cash.

[6] After Mr Blackler was sentenced the police applied under s 32(3) of the Act for orders that the money found in Mr Blackler’s possession be forfeited to the Crown. Section 32(3) provides for the forfeiture of money found in the possession of a person convicted of offences under the Act when a Judge is satisfied that the money in question was received “in the course of or consequent upon the commission of that offence, or was in the possession of [the defendant] for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence ...” under s 6 of the Act. Any forfeiture is additional to any other penalty imposed under the Act.

[7] Mr Blackler opposed the application for a forfeiture order in relation to

$15,000 of the total amount seized by the police. He claimed that money had been acquired innocently and in fact belongs to a Mr Manzone.

[8] Mr Blackler explained to Judge Hobbs that he is a motor vehicle enthusiast, as is Mr Manzone. Apparently Mr Manzone has a classic Ford Bonus truck, which I understand was only manufactured in 1948 and 1949. Mr Blackler knew of a similar vehicle…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Blackler v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NZHC 1003
Decision Date: 7 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Blackler v Police, the appellant, Mr. Blackler, appealed a decision of the Wellington District Court, which ordered the forfeiture of $15,000 to the Crown under section 32(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Mr. Blackler had been convicted of drug offences and the police applied for the forfeiture of the money found in his possession. Mr. Blackler claimed that the money belonged to another individual, Mr. Manzone, who had entrusted him with the funds to purchase a Ford Bonus truck. The District Court rejected this claim, but the High Court, upon hearing additional evidence, allowed the appeal.

The primary legal issue was whether the money found in Mr. Blackler's possession was received "in the course of or consequent upon the commission of [drug] offences" under section 32(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The court had to consider whether the evidence presented by Mr. Blackler and Mr. Manzone provided an innocent explanation for the money in question. The High Court found that the new evidence, which included bank statements and prior consistent statements, supported the appellant's claim that the $15,000 belonged to Mr. Manzone and was not derived from drug dealing. The High Court accepted the new evidence as it was relevant, cogent, and objective, providing a basis for assessing the credibility of the appellant's explanation.

The High Court allowed the appeal and ordered that the $15,000 be returned to Mr. Manzone, as he is the rightful owner of the money. The Court reasoned that the new evidence presented a plausible and innocent explanation for the money in question, which was not available to the District Court at the time of the original hearing. The Court emphasised the importance of justice over finality in exceptional circumstances, such as this case, where new evidence could potentially alter the outcome of the proceedings.

Orders