Rimine v The Queen - [2015] NZCA 167

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA474/2014
[2015] NZCA 167

BETWEEN	DEAN RIMINE Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	22 April 2015
Court:	Wild, Clifford and Dobson JJ
Counsel:	C J Tennet for appellant M H Cooke for respondent
Judgment:	13 May 2015 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against forfeiture is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Clifford J)

Introduction

At about 10.30 pm on 26 November 2009 the appellant, Dean Rimine, was driving a motor vehicle that was stopped at a police checkpoint. Following a search of Mr Rimine’s vehicle, cash of approximately $39,010 was found, together with a large quantity of empty point bags and five sets of electronic scales. When Mr Rimine was searched personally at the police station, the police found a total of 18 grams of methamphetamine, a glass pipe used for smoking methamphetamine and a further $639.20 in cash.
Mr Rimine challenged the admissibility of that evidence. The District Court ruled the search and seizure lawful and the evidence thereby obtained admissible.[1] On appeal, this Court found the initial decision to search Mr Rimine’s vehicle was unlawful. However, applying the test in s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006, it ruled exclusion would be disproportionate to that impropriety.[2] We return to the reasons for this at [33]–[39].
[1]R v Rimine DC Wellington CRI-2009-032-4901, 21 July 2010.
[2]Rimine v R [2010] NZCA 462.
In June 2011 Mr Rimine pleaded guilty to one charge of supplying methamphetamine and one charge of possessing methamphetamine for supply. He was sentenced in October 2011 to three years and eight months’ imprisonment.[3] Mr Rimine has completed that sentence.
[3]R v Rimine DC Wellington CRI-2009-032-4901, 28 October 2011.
By the time Mr Rimine was convicted and sentenced, the police had made an application for the forfeiture of the cash found on 26 November 2009. That application was not heard until July 2014. On 5 August 2014 Judge Hobbs ordered forfeiture of that cash.[4] Mr Rimine now appeals that forfeiture order.

Facts

[4]Police v Rimine DC Wellington CRI-2009-032-4901, 5 August 2014.

On 17 November 2009 a Mr Alan Hill lent Mr Rimine $50,000 in cash, made up of $100 notes. Mr Hill is now deceased. The Crown accepts Mr Hill lent that money for what he thought were legitimate purposes.
Of the money found in Mr Rimine’s vehicle when he was arrested some two weeks later, $14,800 was made up of $100 notes. The balance comprised $50, $20 and $10 notes.
In February 2010 the late Mr Greg King wrote to the police on behalf of Mr Hill, asserting a claim of ownership to the money found in Mr Rimine’s car. The police subsequently confirmed Mr Hill’s account that he had cashed in Bonus Bonds to generate the $50,000 in cash he had paid to Mr Rimine. At the forfeiture hearing before Judge Hobbs, the police accepted that, at the time of Mr Rimine’s arrest on 26 November, 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 Rimine v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Rimine v The Queen [2015] NZCA 167
Case: [2015] NZCA 167
Decision Date: 13 May 2015 at 3.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dean Rimine appeals against a forfeiture order made by Judge Hobbs that orders the forfeiture of $24,845 in cash found in his possession at the time of his arrest. Mr Rimine argues that the cash should not be forfeited on several grounds. He contends that the cash should be returned to him in its entirety because it was not used for his drug dealing activities and therefore did not satisfy the requirements of s 32 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. He also argues that the delay between his sentencing and the forfeiture order, together with the fact that he was not given credit for the forfeiture at the time of sentencing, meant the discretion should have been exercised to decline forfeiture. Finally, he argues that at least the $14,800 representing the balance of a loan from Mr Hill should be returned to him to compensate for the illegal search of his vehicle at the time of his arrest. The Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal against forfeiture. On the first point, the Court of Appeal holds that the conclusion reached by Judge Hobbs, that the money found in Mr Rimine’s possession was held by him for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence against s 6 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (namely the supply of methamphetamine), was one that was open to him not only on the facts but also on the law. On the second point, the Court of Appeal holds that the delay between sentencing and the forfeiture order, while unsatisfactory, did not prejudice Mr Rimine. On the third point, the Court of Appeal holds that Mr Rimine is adequately compensated for the unlawful search on the evening of 26 November 2009 by the declaration of unlawfulness made by the Court of Appeal in Rimine v R.

Orders