Forfeiture of some $175,000 cash on hand satisfied a proceeds of crime forfeiture order with the High Court ruling a forced sale of the family home would not be imposed to recover the further $50,000 assessed as still being due as proceeds from dealing in cannabis.
James Luke Jobes pleaded guilty to one charge of cultivating cannabis and was sentenced to 18 months supervision. This charge followed a 2020 search of his family home on Skyhigh Road at Hunua, south of Auckland, a search triggered by police earlier finding Jobes sitting in a car at Botany Town Centre negotiating what appeared to be a drug deal. Cash and cannabis were found in the car.
Once Jobes pled guilty to cultivation, police withdrew related charges of possession for supply.
He objected to a later Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act proceeds of crime forfeiture application; he had been convicted of cultivation only, not supply.
Justice Campbell ruled police can still pursue a proceeds of crime claim despite no prior criminal conviction for supply. The tactical advantage for police is that the standard of proof for proceeds of crime claims is the civil standard of proof (the balance of probabilities) not the criminal standard (beyond a reasonable doubt).
Jobes said all cannabis grown was for personal use; to alleviate chronic back pain. While police provided no direct evidence of Jobes selling cannabis, Justice Campbell ruled it was more probable than not that Jobes sold surplus cannabis beyond what he consumed.
Police alleged Jobes had generated $1.08 million from sales.
The battle in court turned on conflicting evidence as to how prolific a gardener was Mr Jobes.
Police said they had seized 129 plants from Skyhigh Road. They assessed four 90-day cropping cycles each year over the three years of alleged cultivation. Applying their knowledge of crop yields and market prices, police assessed three years of cultivation had generated $1.08 million in revenue.
Justice Campbell downgraded this assessment. Of the 129 plants seized, nearly one-third were dead. Electricity records for Skyhigh Road showed wild variations in usage, ranging over time from normal household usage to over four times the norm. It was clear there was no continuous cropping cycle.
Justice Campbell ruled $224,000 was a better estimate of the proceeds of crime. Cash seized from Jobes and confiscation of $175,000 held in a bank account were sufficient forfeiture.
The family home on Skyhigh Road was ruled ‘tainted property’ since mortgage payments had been made from proceeds of crime. No forced sale was ordered.
To order sale of Skyhigh to recover the balance due of some $50,000 would be disproportionate, Justice Campbell said. Disruption to family life and costs of realisation did not justify sale of this major asset for recovery of such a relatively small amount.
The balance remains payable by Jobes as a personal debt to be collected as government revenue.
Commissioner of Police v. Jobes – High Court (10.05.24)
24.119