R v Matamata - [2020] NZHC 1530

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF VICTIMS PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2018-020-003953

[2020] NZHC 1530

IN THE MATTER OF an Instrument Forfeiture Order

UNDER

Sections 142A to 142Q of the Sentencing Act 2002

BETWEEN

The Queen

AND

JOSEPH AUGA MATAMATA

CIV-2018-441-000101

UNDER

Subpart 4 of Part 2 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

JOSEPH AUGA MATAMATA

First Respondent

SIA’ANATOE AUGA MATAMATA
Second Respondent

AND

MAMONA TYSON JOSEPH AUGA MATAMATA

First Interested Party

TAMAFAIGA NIXON JOSEPH AUGA MATAMATA

Second Interested Party

ASB BANK LTD

R v MATAMATA [2020] NZHC 1530 [1 July 2020]

Third Interested Party

ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LTD
Fourth Interested Party

Hearing: 23 June 2020

Counsel:

C R Walker for the Crown

R Philip of the First Respondent
M Hamilton for the Second Respondent
R D Stone for the First and Second Interested Parties

Judgment:

1 July 2020

Reissued:

30 July 2020

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[Instrument Forfeiture Order by Consent]

Overview of the instrument forfeiture proceedings

[1] At the conclusion of the five and a half week trial on 17 March 2020, Mr Matamata was convicted of 10 offences of trafficking in persons and 13 offences of dealing in slaves.1 After the entry of the convictions, Mr Matamata was remanded in custody for sentence on 6 May 2020. All offences are qualifying instrument forfeiture offences.2

[2] The background facts to the offending are that Mr Matamata arranged the entry of four groups of victims into New Zealand over a period of time, from 1994 to 2019, by representing to all but two of the victims, that they would receive income by coming to work in New Zealand. The arrangement was that each of the victims would live with Mr Matamata and his family at the Kiwi Street properties in Hastings, where they would be given food and accommodation and undertake work as organised by Mr Matamata. The individuals from all four groups, comprising 13 victims, were used as slaves and 10 were the subject of trafficking in persons.3

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 98 98D.
2      Sentencing Act 2002, s 4.
3      Mr Matamata was charged with 13 counts of slavery and 11 counts of trafficking in persons, in respect of a total of 13 victims. He was convicted of all 13 slavery charges and 10 of the trafficking charges. The offending in relation to the first two victims occurred before the offence of

[3] At the scheduled hearing on 23 June 2020, an Instrument Forfeiture Order in respect of Mr Matamata’s partial interest in the Kiwi Street properties was made by consent, in the sum of $215,000.4

Background to instrument forfeiture hearing

[4] At a teleconference convened during the COVID-19 lockdown period, the Crown signalled that in the prosecutor’s opinion, the Court should consider whether to make an instrument forfeiture order…

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 Matamata

Details

AGLC: R v Matamata [2020] NZHC 1530
Case: [2020] NZHC 1530
Decision Date: 1 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Matamata, heard in the High Court of New Zealand, involves the conviction of Joseph Auga Matamata for multiple offences of trafficking in persons and dealing in slaves. The case concerns the forfeiture of Mr Matamata's partial interest in two properties located at Kiwi Street, Hastings, as an instrument of crime under the Sentencing Act 2002. The court was tasked with determining whether the properties constituted instruments of crime, the extent of Mr Matamata's interest in them, and whether any relief should be granted to third parties. After considering the evidence and submissions from the parties, the court concluded that both properties were indeed instruments of crime, as they were fundamental to the commission of the slavery and trafficking offences. The court also found that Mr Matamata had a partial interest in the properties due to his effective control over them, despite the properties being registered in the names of his sons. The court made an Instrument Forfeiture Order by consent, forfeiting Mr Matamata's partial interest in the properties valued at $215,000 to the Crown. The order provides for the application of the forfeited funds to cover costs, payment to the Commissioner of Police, satisfaction of any sentence of reparation, and, if applicable, the distribution of any remaining proceeds to the registered proprietors of the properties. The court exercised its discretion to make the order, considering the nature and circumstances of the offending and the interests of all parties involved.

Orders