plasticwrap

I suspect that every law could be used in a way that it was not intended.

I’m hoping that this particular law will come into effect after the conviction.

From information I have seen it is only applied to folks that hold a conviction that invokes a sentence for a specific time period, which is considered serious. In this case I think the example used was over 5 years.

So the intention of the law is to ensure that the convicted are not just punished and then left with the spoils. But punished and have the proceeds of the crime returned to the community it was perpetrated against.

The law also distinguishes between who uses the item not who the registered owner is.

My understanding is based from the little material that I have seen released.

Unfortunately, this proprosed law isn't only able to be used after you've been convicted, instead it's if the police have a reasonable suspicion that your possessions have been gained as the result of crime. The police are not required to initiate criminal charges as well, although the law only covers crimes which would have a 5year+ sentence if crim proceedings were taken. This proposal has a much lower threshold than is needed to prove a crime - which is beyond reasonable doubt, as opposed to a reasonable belief as is mooted here - and moves the onus of proof from the prosecution (police) to the defendant.

It's a crappy law that goes against some fundamental rule of law principles. One example would be if you were found not guilty of the crim but the police used this law to take away your possessions - that's plainly against the double jeapardy rule (ie, once you're tried you won't be re-tried for the same offence). I worry about the current governments policies. I could ramble on about this all day so I'll stop here!

I don't know anything about what Goff's proposing, but I understand that there are some non-totalitarian justice systems that don't assume that the defendent is innocent unless proven guilty. Apparently the French have a system that works this way.

In New Zealand for years in different types of courts/tribunals there has been a different 'burden of proof' required in order to establish fact and act accordingly. In the criminal court things have to be established "beyond reasonable doubt" whereas in the family court and in some tribunals things only have to be established "on the balance of probabilities" (ie, establishing that it is "likely" that the offence happened, rather than "almost certain")

I think it is a good argument that in some types of criminal cases (eg, rape, sexual abuse, domestic violence) guilt should only need to be established on the balance of probabilities, as the nature of the crime means that there are unlikely to be witnesses or any other kind of decisive evidence, but it is so, so, important to the betterment of our society that people committing these crimes are seen to be being caught and prosecuted.

Ok, I did not realise that there was not an actual conviction involved.

So it’s a case of the police have a suspicion of a crime that is considered serious. They set in motion a criminal case and either proceed or do not.

Either way simultaneously whoever represents the crown in court seek a High Court order after showing there were reasonable grounds to believe the person benefited directly or indirectly from criminal activity that carried a jail term of at least five years.

The Crown then proves that there is at least
$30,000 worth of assets gained by criminal activity or at least not from income that can be traced to a legitimate source.

The high court judge allows or disallows the order and the goods are seized and then the owner has to prove they came from legitimate source.

It seams rough, and I would not want to go through the process, but I would like to see confiscation of assets gained through criminal activity. Crime should have no benefit.

I guess I am in a position to give away some freedoms to gain safety.

I still don't like it. It would very easily be abused, ie, where the police know that they cannot prove a criminal charge they may still be able to gain a court order (due to the lower threshold of proof). To me, I think if the police cannot prove the original charge, then they shouln't be able to get in the back door. I'd be happier if the removal of assets was instead used as part of the sentencing, that is you get found guilty for a certain offence and as part of your sentence any assets of that crime were looked at and removed if appropriate. The way it's being put forward it's a totally separate proceeding which is used at the discretion of the Police & Justice Dept. That doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

This law won't be too much of a problem for the obviously guilty (where there's enough evidence to convict) it's the less obvious cases I worry about. I know that all laws can be abused, however, we also try to keep these to a certain standard and I feel that this law goes below that. Personal opinion I know!

Fair call.

I suspect I am too trusting in that I expect everyone to get a fair go.

Too trusting that the individuals in each case is going to be motivated to the spirit of a law not to its varied interpretations.

Where is utopia? I want a ticket in.

apparently the confiscation of assets were someone HAS been convicted is actually in place, but only netted a 'measley' $8million from 1995 to 2003 - the Proceeds of Crime Act.
http://stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3107437a11,00.html

funfun if you get on the wrong side of your local cops really ain't it - you've got some tatts and we SAW you hanging round with that gang member - whoops! there goes your new stereo.

soo many of the recent 'knee jerk' laws recently have 'reasonable cause' in them. if they're not going to spell it out in black and white, they're asking for trouble

Yeah I think that it's interesting that they are promoting it from the point of view that for gangs or drug dealers that escape criminal convictions can have their "illegal asset" seized under civil law. But how can you prove illegal assets? I'm sure that the police aren't going to troll thru your bank statements to make sure you had "honest" earnings. The onus is going to be on the person to provide a the paperwork. Aparently their are loopholes as big as a truck so you know that the gangs & drug dealers will be the people who sneak thru & it'll be mr ordinary who gets stung.

I suppose that when all is said and done, it's the law itself that I don't like. I realise that the cops need powers to fight crime, but over the centuries we've come up with a basic set of rules that the government and police have to follow so that they can't abuse the large imbalance of power which is wholly in their favour. I think that the proposed law is an inroad into those rules and I don't know if anyone has really looked at if this is where we want to start heading as a nation.

Your blog is realy very interesting. http://www.g888.com

Thanks

Interesting law as this means that if convicted of a crime under Criminal Law then under the Bill Of Rights Section 26 (1)you have no defence against 'Double Jeopardy', which the New South Wales Goverment has passed legislation to remove it from their State Crimes Act.
This means you are literally being sued and convicted under civil law for the same crime. This goes against all legal and ethical principles as well as the individuals rights and the principles under which the Bill of Rights was introduced. It is also floored in that I agree the long time adage of you are innocent until proven 'Guilty' no longer stands and therefore you are guilty and never innocent as you can be convicted for the same crime under both Criminal and Civil Law. Why then have a Bill Of Rights ?

Interesting law as this means that if convicted of a crime under Criminal Law then under the Bill Of Rights Section 26 (1)you have no defence against 'Double Jeopardy', which the New South Wales Goverment has passed legislation to remove it from their State Crimes Act.
This means you are literally being sued and convicted under civil law for the same crime. This goes against all legal and ethical principles as well as the individuals rights and the principles under which the Bill of Rights was introduced. It is also floored in that I agree the long time adage of you are innocent until proven 'Guilty' no longer stands and therefore you are guilty and never innocent as you can be convicted for the same crime under both Criminal and Civil Law. Why then have a Bill Of Rights ?