R v Hakaraia - [2020] NZHC 2668

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-004-2282

[2020] NZHC 2668

THE QUEEN

v

WIWINI HIMI HAKARAIA

Hearing: 30 September 2020

Appearances:

D G Johnstone and E Smith for Crown P Wicks QC and K Hogan for Defendant

Ruling:

30 September 2020

Reasons:

12 October 2020

REASONS FOR RULING (No. 5) OF LANG J

[re application by Mr Hakaraia for discharge under s 147 Criminal Procedure Act 2011]

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 October 2020 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

R v HAKARAIA [2020] NZHC 2668 [30 September 2020]

[1] Mr Hakaraia faced a charge of participating in an organised criminal group and three charges of money laundering. At the conclusion of the Crown case he applied for an order under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 discharging him on all charges that he faced. He based his argument on the proposition that no properly directed jury could reasonably convict him on the basis of the evidence adduced by the Crown.1

[2] Mr Johnstone conceded on behalf of the Crown that Mr Hakaraia should be discharged on Charges 3 and 4, which related to alleged money laundering in connection with the purchase of two concrete pumps. Mr Johnstone contended there was sufficient evidence to enable a properly directed jury to reasonably convict Mr Hakaraia on the remaining two charges.

[3] In a ruling delivered following argument on 30 September 2020 I granted both remaining applications for discharge. I now give my reasons for doing so.

Charge 2 – Participating in an organised criminal group

The charge

[4] This charge is laid under s 98A of the Crimes Act 1961, which materially provides as follows:

98A Participation in organised criminal group

(1)Every person commits an offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who participates in an organised criminal group—

(a)knowing that 3 or more people share any 1 or more of the objectives (the particular objective or particular objectives) described in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) (whether or not the person himself or herself shares the particular objective or particular objectives); and

(b)either knowing that his or her conduct contributes, or being reckless as to whether his or her conduct may contribute, to the occurrence of any criminal activity; and

1 R v Flyger [2001] 2 NZLR 721, (2000) 18 CRNZ 624 (CA); Parris v Attorney-General [2004] 1 NZLR 519(CA) at [14].

(c)either knowing that the criminal activity contributes, or being reckless as to whether the criminal activity may contribute, to achieving the particular objective or particular objectives of the organised criminal group.

(2)For the purposes of this Act, a group is an organised criminal group if it is a group of 3 or more people who have as their objective or one of their objectives—

(a)obtaining material benefits from the…

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 R v Hakaraia

Details

AGLC: R v Hakaraia [2020] NZHC 2668
Case: [2020] NZHC 2668
Decision Date: 12 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Hakaraia faced charges of participating in an organised criminal group and money laundering. The Crown argued that Mr Hakaraia was part of a group involved in drug dealing and that he knowingly contributed to their activities, including providing financial assistance for the purchase of a concrete pump and a vehicle. The Crown also alleged that Mr Hakaraia engaged in money laundering by contributing funds towards the purchase of a vehicle. Mr Hakaraia applied for discharge under section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, arguing there was insufficient evidence for a jury to convict him on any of the charges. The Crown conceded that Mr Hakaraia should be discharged on the money laundering charges but argued that there was enough evidence to support a conviction on the charge of participating in an organised criminal group.

The court considered whether a properly directed jury could reasonably conclude that Mr Hakaraia knew that three or more members of the group shared the objective of deriving financial benefits from criminal activity. The court found that while there was evidence Mr Hakaraia knew and dealt with two members of the group, there was insufficient evidence to suggest he knew a third member. The court also found that the Crown's argument that lawfully derived funds become the proceeds of an offence when used to further the activities of a criminal group was not supported by the law. The court concluded that there was no antecedent offending that caused the funds to become the proceeds of a criminal offence.

The court granted Mr Hakaraia's application for discharge on all charges. It found that no properly directed jury could reasonably conclude that Mr Hakaraia knew that three or more members of the group shared the objective of deriving financial benefits from criminal activity. The court also found that the Crown's argument on the money laundering charge was not supported by the law and that there was no antecedent offending that caused the funds to become the proceeds of a criminal offence. As a result, Mr Hakaraia was discharged on all charges.

Orders