High Court ordered surrender of assets valued at $793,000 as proceeds of crime from patched Hawkes Bay Mongrel Mob member Derrick Irwin currently serving a thirteen year term for meth dealing. Son Thomas was entitled to receive $84,260, a life assurance payout on his mother’s death held in his father’s bank account.
Police seized cash and a Ford Mustang on Irwin’s Te Haroto property near Hastings in a drug bust and had court orders placed over the property. In prison, Irwin did not contest a police $793,000 proceeds of crime order.
Irwin supported his son’s claim to $84,260, part of the money held in an ANZ bank account in Irwin’s name. He said this was held in trust for son Thomas, now aged 23. The High Court was told Irwin’s then wife, Thomas’ mother, died when Thomas was aged ten. The life policy payment was made to Irwin. Irwin told the High Court Thomas was promised this money would be his at age 21, provided he did not follow his father into a life of crime. Current balances in the ANZ account never fell below $84,260 over the intervening years. Justice Cooke ruled an express trust existed in favour of son Thomas over the $84,260 payout. Since he was now older than 21 and had honoured his father’s wishes not to adopt a criminal lifestyle, Thomas was entitled to that money.
The High Court dismissed a relationship property claim by Irwin’s de facto partner to half Irwin’s assets. She had benefitted from Irwin’s drug dealing over their nine year relationship. Claiming not to have any knowledge of his meth dealing, Justice Cooke said she was ‘wilfully blind:’ she had banned Mongrel Mob visitors from the Te Haroto house in the knowledge plans for illegal activity were being hatched in discussions outside the front door; she had seen Irwin both bringing drugs into the house and counting large sums of cash; she had acted as a lookout warning Irwin by text when police were in the vicinity. Social welfare benefits received by Irwin and herself were insufficient to support their lifestyle, Justice Cooke said. Evidence was given that both Irwin and his de facto spouse are under investigation for social welfare fraud.
Commissioner of Police v. Irwin – High Court (17.06.20)
20.105