HIDDEN WORRIES ABOUT HIDDEN PLOTS

Some landowners may be worrying unduly, it seems, over law changes
now before Parliament.

Some - including absentee owners of isolated get-away-from-it holiday
spots - might understandably be concerned because of unfortunate past
experiences.

Like Bob Syron of Mt Eden. He owns a forestry block in Northland.

Unknown to him, it was hijacked at one stage by drug growers, a
hidden pot plantation among undeveloped scrub at the back of his land.

He was able to destroy the crop and spray regrowth.

His reading of the new Criminal Proceeds Recovery Bill has convinced
him that another experience like that could put him at serious risk
because it seemed to him that, under the new legislation, police
would be able to seize property without the owner having been convicted.

He believed other owners could feel the same way.

He also feared that the onus of proof would be on him to show that he
had not played any part in the drug cultivation and was not a trader.

In a letter he describes the problem facing farmers, unlike police
who can fly surveillance helicopters low enough for their rotors to
part the growth canopy and reveal the plantations.

"I cannot afford the cost of that sort of technology and without it I
can't investigate the scrub or what is below that canopy.

"The luckless landowner victims, who in most cases would not qualify
for legal aid, would be unable to afford the huge expenses of proving
their innocence."

Well, Bob, rest easy. When I went to the Ministry of Justice with
your concerns, this was the response of a ministry spokesman. Cut it
out and put it on your fridge door in case you need it as evidence in
the future:

"The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill as drafted does not change the
current law (the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991) on when the instruments
of crime can be seized.

"Instruments of crime are property used to commit a crime, such as a
farm used to grow marijuana.

"Under the current law and the proposed law, if police find marijuana
growing on a farmer's land, the farmer would have to be convicted by
a court of growing the marijuana before police could apply to seize
the property.

"This means that the farmer's involvement in the criminal activity
would need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

"In summary, if someone uses their legitimately-owned property to
commit an offence, police can only apply to seize the property
following conviction for that offence.

"The bill does enable the profits or proceeds of crime to be seized
without conviction.

"Where a person is making illegitimate income from significant
criminal activity, the bill enables those profits, or assets derived
from that income, to be seized."

This has been labelled the "unexplained wealth" rule and is based on
an assumption "on the balance of probabilities" - a good legal
catchphrase and definition like but not the same as "beyond reasonable doubt".

The assumption: That the odd few millions in the bank, a garage full
of high-performance cars or classic Harleys without a matching tax
return come from the proceeds of a criminal career.

The Ministry of Justice is happy the bill is good law.

But it's fair to say that Bob Syron is not completely convinced and
believes there is still scope for injustice to the innocent.