The Queen v Machirus

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA349/2008
[2009] NZCA 95
THE QUEEN
v
PETER LLOYD MACHIRUS
Hearing:23 March 2009

Court:William Young P, Hammond and Robertson JJ
Counsel:C W J Stevenson for Appellant

T Epati for Crown

Judgment:23 March 2009

ORAL JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is allowed, the judgment under appeal is set aside and we declare that the provisions of s 19 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 govern the discharge of the forfeiture orders and continue to be applicable.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by William Young P)
[1] On 18 April 2008, Judge Crosbie made forfeiture orders which were premised on the appellant’s convictions on eight counts following a district court jury trial. Those convictions were later set aside in this Court: R v Machirus [2008] NZCA 477. Under s 19 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991, this served to discharge the forfeiture orders.
[2] For the avoidance of doubt as to the continuing status of the judgment under appeal, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment, but record that the provisions of s 19 govern the discharge of the orders and continue to be applicable.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Peter Lloyd Machirus was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellant, Peter Lloyd Machirus, contested the forfeiture orders that were made following his convictions on eight counts. These convictions were later set aside by the Court of Appeal. The central issue in this appeal was the applicability of the provisions of section 19 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 to the discharge of the forfeiture orders, and whether these provisions continue to be applicable.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the provisions of section 19 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991, which governs the discharge of the forfeiture orders, were correctly applied by the lower court. The Court of Appeal had to determine whether the appeal should be allowed, the judgment under appeal set aside, and whether the provisions of section 19 continue to be applicable. The Court had to examine the evidence presented in the case and the relevant legal principles to arrive at a decision.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment under appeal. The Court found that the provisions of section 19 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 govern the discharge of the forfeiture orders and continue to be applicable. The Court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and the relevant legal principles. The Court concluded that the appeal was well-founded and that the provisions of section 19 should continue to apply to the discharge of the forfeiture orders.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal is allowed, the judgment under appeal is set aside, and it is declared that the provisions of section 19 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 govern the discharge of the forfeiture orders and continue to be applicable. This decision provides clarity on the legal issue and ensures that the provisions of the Act are correctly applied in future cases.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established