Locke Keith: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — First Reading 
Locke Keith: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8137] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I will make just a few points to follow on from what my colleague Nandor Tanczos said earlier. I would like to talk about this reverse onus of proof issue where effectively one has to prove oneself innocent rather than being proved guilty. I will read out a bit of the general policy statement in the explanatory note to explain how the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill proposes that people can prove themselves innocent: “To obtain a profit forfeiture order the Director must prove on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has in the relevant period of criminal activity derived benefits from significant criminal activity. Once that is proved the value of those benefits is presumed to be the value stated in the application … It is then for the respondent to rebut that presumption on the balance of probabilities.” I think that would run counter to a recent Supreme Court decision in a drugs case  
Hansen v R 
 where the Supreme Court stated that it supported Hansen in relation to the application of that drug charge because he should not have to prove his innocence. 
Another worrying aspect of this law is that the money taken in from these forfeitures goes straight into the State treasury and although that might be a relief to some taxpayers in the sense that additional money is going in there surely if we are interested in victims and in their rights and benefits any such moneys should be at least not just part of a profit-seeking exercise. My colleague said previously that one of the problems with the British law was that it seemed to be a money-gathering exercise so we are a bit worried about that aspect. 
We are also worried about the whole concept and Hone Harawira spoke very eloquently I thought about the undermining of the basic principle that one is innocent until proven guilty. The other worrying aspect is that it can lead to injustices in the sense that effectively plea bargaining will go on. If the police come up to somebody and say they have not quite got the evidence to get him on this crime but they think that he did it and the person says that he did not do it but that someone else did the police can say that they do not really have the evidence to prove him guilty but on the balance of probabilities they could nail him and do him for a million dollars or the equivalent in assets. 
That person would then realise he was in a bit of a corner because he knows the way things work and that a guy down the road has a grudge against him and—as Hone Harawira said—that guy will give some supposed evidence to say that the person’s million dollars in property comes from illegal activity. So the person is looking at a very difficult situation. When the police come back to him they say that they will not go down the track of taking the million dollars from him if he pleads guilty to a lesser charge which will give him only 3 months in jail. The police ask him which way he will go. The person as part of this plea bargaining takes the 3 months’ jail in exchange for holding on to his million dollars’ worth of assets. That is the very tricky situation we would get into if this law goes through. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.