Mills v Police - [2020] NZHC 2217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2020-419-67

[2020] NZHC 2217

BETWEEN
JOSEPH MILLS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Virtual hearing: 28 August 2020

Appearances:

L K McMaster for the appellant A S C Alcock for the respondent

Date of judgment:

28 August 2020

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

The reasons for judgment was delivered by me on 28 August 2020 at 2.00pm.

…………………………. Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Public Defence Service, Hamilton
Hamilton Legal, Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

MILLS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 2217 [28 August 2020]

[1] Joseph Mills appeals against the judgment of Judge RLB Spear in the District Court at Hamilton on 20 July 20201, convicting him of money laundering.2

[2] At the conclusion of this virtual hearing, as an alternative to my oral judgment then, I offered to give the result then, with reasons to follow in writing. Counsel were content with the latter course. I dismissed the appeal. These are my reasons.

Background

[3] On 3 December 2018, $3,534 was transferred from the complainant’s bank account to a bank account said to be held by Mr Mills. Later that day, $3,500 was withdrawn from Mr Mills’ bank account. On enquiry by the police under caution, Mr Mills explained a friend had asked to use his bank account to transfer money into, and to use his bank card to withdraw the transferred money from, the account. Mr Mills agreed, and supplied his account details and card to his friend.

Judgment under appeal

[4] The Judge heard evidence from the complainant and a police officer. The complainant established the unlawful transfer of money from her account to another.3 The police officer established the other account was held in Mr Mills’ name.4 The officer’s enquiry of Mr Mills was not formally recorded, but his evidence was drawn from photocopies of his contemporaneous notes (his notebook no longer being available).5 The Judge found Mr Mills’ response to be “cogent” and “credible” evidence of the unlawfully-obtained money’s transfers,6 and Mr Mills’ provision to another of access to his bank account and card carried sufficient risk that other person “may use such access for dishonest purposes” to render Mr Mills reckless as to the money’s lawful source,7 thus establishing his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.8

1      Police v Mills [2020] NZDC 14557.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 243(2).
3      Police v Mills, above n 1, at [3]–[4].
4 At [5].
5      At [6]–[7].
6      At [18]–[19].
7 At [24].
8 At [25].

[5] Mr Mills’ counsel, Laurie McMaster – while accepting the transfer of money from the complainant’s account was of the proceeds of an offence – argues the Judge erred in fact in concluding Mr Mills’ guilt, absent evidence linking him to the transfer of funds from the complainant’s account, or linking his friend to the money transferred from that account. She also argues the Judge erred in law in concluding Mr Mills was reckless because of…

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.

Continue reading Mills v Police

Details

AGLC: Mills v Police [2020] NZHC 2217
Case: [2020] NZHC 2217
Decision Date: 28 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joseph Mills appeals against his conviction by the District Court of Hamilton for money laundering. The appeal was dismissed by Jagose J of the High Court of New Zealand. The appeal was heard virtually on 28 August 2020, with McMaster representing the appellant and Alcock representing the respondent. The appeal was dismissed on 28 August 2020. The central issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to establish Mr Mills' guilt of money laundering beyond a reasonable doubt. The District Court had found Mr Mills' explanation to police credible and sufficient to establish his recklessness in providing his bank account and card to a friend, which carried a sufficient risk of dishonest use. Ms McMaster argued there was no evidence linking the complainant's evidence to Mr Mills' statement to police, and there was nothing connecting Mr Mills' friend to the transfer out of the complainant's account. She also argued that the Judge improperly inferred Mr Mills' recklessness from the absence of evidence of his relationship with his friend. Jagose J held that the District Court judge's decision was open to him on the evidence presented and that there was no miscarriage of justice in the trial. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders