R v Ryan
[2015] NZHC 2201
•11 September 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CRI-2015-404-000255 [2015] NZHC 2201
THE QUEEN
v
LISA MARIE RYAN
Hearing: 10 - 11 September 2015 Appearances:
R McCoubrey for the Crown
T Cooper for the DefendantJudgment:
11 September 2015
VERDICT OF WOOLFORD J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Counsel:T Cooper, Sentinel Chambers, Auckland
R v RYAN [2015] NZHC 2201 [11 September 2015]
[1] The defendant, Lisa Marie Ryan, faces four charges of money laundering laid under s 243(2) of the Crimes Act 1961. They are all similar and allege that Ms Ryan engaged in money laundering transactions in respect of four different motor vehicles on four separate dates between May 2012 and March 2014.
[2] Charge One reads that “Lisa Marie Ryan on or about 7 May 2012 at Auckland, together with Michael Joseph Cavanagh in respect of a Holden Captiva motor vehicle, registration GFN677, engaged in a money laundering transaction knowing all or part of the purchase price of the vehicle were the proceeds of a serious offence”. The other three charges relate to a Porsche Boxter, registration DCU 455, a Maserati Grandsport, registration FMM748, and an Audi Q3, registration HHS285.
[3] I remind myself that the onus of proving each element of each charge is on the Crown to a standard of beyond reasonable doubt. There are four elements of each charge. The Crown has to prove that:
(a) The cars were the proceeds of a serious offence.
(b)Ms Ryan dealt with the cars or assisted another person, whether directly or indirectly, to deal with them.
(c) When Ms Ryan dealt with the cars or assisted another person, whether directly or indirectly, to deal with them, she intended to conceal them or to enable the other person to conceal them; and
(d)Ms Ryan knew or believed the cars were the proceeds of a serious offence or was reckless as to whether the cars were the proceeds of a serious offence.
[4] There are a number of relevant definitions in the statute. Proceeds means any property that is derived or realised, directly or indirectly, by any person from the commission of a serious offence. Proceeds is to be given a wide definition, which includes both property, such as money, which is itself obtained by a serious offence,
such as the sale of methamphetamine, and other property derived directly or indirectly from those primary proceeds, such as a car purchased with that money.
[5] A serious offence means an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of five years or more and includes the manufacture, possession for supply or supply of methamphetamine.
[6] Deal with means to deal with property in any manner and by any means and includes, without limitation: (a) To dispose of the property whether by way of sale, purchase, gift or otherwise; or (b) To transfer possession of the property.
[7] Where it is alleged, as in this case, that a car was concealed, it is the status of the car that is in issue. Relevant conduct in public such as registering a car in someone else’s name can conceal property within the meaning of the section. It is not necessary to physically hide it away. Registering a car in someone else’s name, in effect, hides it away in public.
[8] Finally, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that Ms Ryan knew or believed that the cars were the proceeds of a particular serious offence or a particular class of serious offence. A person is reckless if knowing that there is a risk that a car is the proceeds of a serious offence, he or she takes that risk and it is unreasonable for him or her to take it having regard to the degree and nature of the risk, which he or she knew to be present.
[9] Ms Ryan was originally charged with eight other defendants following the termination of a Police Operation Genoa, which targeted the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine. Her trial was, however, severed from the trial of the defendants on 24 August 2015, just before it was due to commence. Ms Ryan’s trial commenced before me as a Judge-alone trial on 10 September 2015.
[10] Ms Ryan is the mother of two of the other defendants – Victoria Cavanagh and Peter Shaw. Victoria Cavanagh is the wife of Michael Cavanagh, a patched member of the Head Hunters. Michael Cavanagh was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment after being charged and convicted of various offences relating to the
manufacture of methamphetamine following the termination of an earlier Police
Operation Illusion in August 2002. Michael Cavanagh was released on parole on 17
May 2010. The Police allege that, following his release on parole, Michael
Cavanagh resumed dealing in drugs.
[11] The Police allege that, despite having no known form of income since Michael Cavanagh’s release on parole, he and Victoria Cavanagh have amassed significant cash and assets to a value in excess of $3 million acquired through dealing in drugs. The assets acquired by the Cavanaghs are said to include four house properties, numerous luxury motor vehicles and motor cycles, jewellery, as well as gold and silver. It is also alleged that cash in excess of $1 million has been concealed in safe deposit boxes throughout Auckland.
[12] Michael Cavanagh has pleaded guilty to one charge of obtaining a document, five charges of engaging in a money laundering transaction, two charges of the unlawful possession of a pistol, one charge of supplying a class B controlled drug – ephedrine, one charge of supplying materials used in the manufacture of methamphetamine and one charge of false representation. He is currently in custody awaiting sentence.
[13] Ms Ryan’s daughter, Victoria Cavanagh, has pleaded guilty to one charge of making a false representation, one charge of using a false New Zealand passport, two charges of money laundering and one charge of possession of class B controlled drug
– ephedrine – for supply. She is currently on EM bail awaiting sentence.
[14] One of Michael Cavanagh’s co-offenders in Operation Illusion was Shannon Stevens. She was released on parole on 5 May 2008. Following her release on parole, Shannon Stevens became the partner of Ms Ryan’s son, Peter Shaw, until they separated in March 2014. Police allege that Peter Shaw was assisting Shannon Stevens with the manufacture of methamphetamine while they were partners.
[15] Earlier this year, Peter Shaw pleaded guilty to one charge of manufacturing methamphetamine, two charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply, one charge of supplying a class B controlled drug – ephedrine, one charge of unlawful
possession of a firearm and one charge of forgery. He was sentenced by me to
11 years and five months imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of five years and nine months.
[16] The prosecution case in respect of the four charges faced by Ms Ryan is straightforward. It is that Ms Ryan was well aware that her daughter was married to a patched member of the Head Hunters gang and that he had served a term of imprisonment for the manufacture and sale of methamphetamine. The Police also allege she was aware that her daughter and Michael Cavanagh had no legitimate form of income.
[17] The Police allege that Michael Cavanagh used funds from dealing in drugs to purchase the four cars at issue and that in order to conceal his ownership of the cars, Ms Ryan agreed to have them registered in her name.
[18] On the other hand, the defence case is equally straightforward. It is that Ms Ryan did not know that her son-in-law, Michael Cavanagh, or her daughter, Victoria Cavanagh, had registered three of the cars in her name. As to the fourth car, the Audi Q3, Ms Ryan says she was asked by her daughter to sign the offer and sale agreement in her name so that they could get insurance for the vehicle. Ms Ryan alleges that she did not know or suspect that the money used to purchase the vehicle came from any illegal activity.
[19] As to the issues arising, there is no contest that the cars were purchased with the proceeds of drug dealing. Michael Cavanagh has himself pleaded guilty to engaging in a money laundering transaction in respect of all four cars when they were registered in the name of Ms Ryan – his mother-in-law. Victoria Cavanagh has also pleaded guilty to a charge of engaging in a money laundering transaction in respect of the Audi Q3 by arranging for it to be registered in her mother’s name.
[20] The first issue with respect to the charges relating to the three cars, other than the Audi Q3, is whether the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Ryan dealt with the cars, in effect, whether she knew and agreed to have the cars registered in her name.
[21] The second issue with respect to the charges relating to all four cars is whether if and when she dealt with them, has the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that she did so with intent to conceal their true ownership.
[22] The third issue, again, with respect to the charges relating to all four cars is whether if and when she dealt with them, with an intent to conceal their true ownership, has the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that she knew or believed the cars were the proceeds of a serious offence or was reckless as to whether they were.
[23] The prosecution called only one witness, Detective Sergeant John Sowter. The evidence of one witness, the finance and leasing manager at Continental Cars, was admitted by consent and taken as read. A memorandum of admitted facts was produced together with a series of photographs, documents such as certificates of particulars for the cars, a transcript of a DVD interview of Ms Ryan and a booklet of transcribed telephone conversations.
[24] Detective Sergeant Sowter gave background evidence about the two Police operations. As to the four cars, the Police were unable to produce any direct evidence that Ms Ryan knew that three of them had been registered in her name. Detective Sergeant Sowter acknowledged that it was possible for a person to register a car in someone else’s name without their knowledge.
[25] The evidence led by the prosecution also included evidence about Ms Ryan arranging to rent a storage unit in her name in Parnell in which a substantial amount of cash and a pistol had been found. Although initially charged with the possession of the pistol, that charge was later withdrawn.
[26] The defence called three witnesses – Ms Ryan herself, her daughter, Victoria Cavanagh and a character witness, Joanne McSweeney. Ms Ryan said that although she knew Michael Cavanagh was a patched member of Head Hunters and had served time for manufacturing methamphetamine, she believed he had turned his life around after release from prison and marriage to her daughter. He had told her that he had
received a substantial inheritance from his parents and had an interest in a juice business as well as having invested in property.
[27] She said she did not know that either Michael Cavanagh or Victoria Cavanagh had registered three cars in her name until after her arrest. As to the fourth car, the Audi Q3, she said her daughter asked if she and her husband could place it in her name because of the difficulty her husband had in getting insurance because of his convictions.
[28] As to the rental of the storage unit, she said she did that at the specific request of her daughter and had never been back or paid any rental.
[29] When she was first spoken to by the Police, Ms Ryan agreed to give a DVD interview. She did not have to say anything, but chose to do so. Although not given on oath or subject to cross-examination, I treat the account and explanation given by her, what little it was, as normal evidence just like any other evidence. She told a number of lies in that interview, such as she did not have any idea who used the Audi Q3 registered in her name.
[30] Ms Ryan has also chosen to give evidence. She did not have to do so and that does not change who must prove the allegations. But having given evidence, three possibilities arise. First, I may accept what she says that she did not have the necessary knowledge and intent. If I do that, she is entitled to be acquitted.
[31] Second, what she says may leave me unsure. Then, again, the proper verdict is acquittal because I would have been left with a reasonable doubt. The third possibility is that I may disbelieve what she said about the lack of any intent to conceal the cars and the lack of knowledge or recklessness. If I disbelieve her, I am not to leap from that assessment to guilt because to do that would be to forget who has to prove the case. Rather, I am to stand back and consider all the evidence to see if the Crown has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
[32] In doing so, I am entitled to draw inferences about her knowledge and intent
from all the surrounding circumstances. Ms Ryan’s knowledge and intent is a
question of fact, which needs to be proved by the Crown, just like any other relevant fact. The inferences I draw should be logical, reasonable and fair deductions from the facts that I have reliably established.
[33] In this case, I am unable to reject Ms Ryan’s evidence about her lack of knowledge and intent. What she says leaves me unsure and therefore the Crown has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on all four charges.
[34] I have taken the following factors into account in no particular order:
(a) The lack of direct evidence that Ms Ryan knew that three of the cars had been registered in her name.
(b) The acknowledgement by the Police that it was possible to register a
car in someone else’s name without their knowledge.
(c) The plausibility of the reason given by her daughter for registering the
Audi Q3 in her name.
(d)The support given to Ms Ryan’s evidence by that of her daughter, Victoria Cavanagh.
(e) The evident shock and dismay displayed by Ms Ryan at the arrest of her daughter and son and resulting attitude when interviewed on DVD by the Police.
(f) The explanations given by her for potentially incriminating telephone conversations post-arrest.
(g)The lack of any evidence that Ms Ryan visited the storage unit after renting it or paid rental for it.
(h) Ms Ryan’s previous good character and lack of criminal convictions.
Ms Ryan’s gainful employment as a midwife and her reputation
within the profession; and
(j) Ms Ryan’s obvious naivety and willingness to think the best of
everyone.
[35] In summary, I cannot reject Ms Ryan’s evidence as implausible. Other persons may have had their suspicions and made further inquiry, but Ms Ryan does not appear to have done so. She seems to have been naïve and trusting.
[36] All four charges are accordingly dismissed. Ms Ryan you are free to go. Please do not come before the Courts again.
……………………………….
Woolford J
0
0
0