Innocent until proven guilty. It's a fundamental tenet of our justice system. But it seems there are varying shades of grey when it comes to the law.
Yesterday, we reported how more than $3 million in property, assets and cash have been frozen in the Bay of Plenty under acontentious law used to target gangs.
It followed the recent case of a senior Maketu Mongrel Mob member who had more than $1 million in assets seized under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.
Proceeds of crime should absolutely be taken off criminals.
But Valentine Nicholas, who had $1.17m in property seized, including a whole forestry block, had been found not guilty of charges against him.
The seizure of his assets was able to happen because the Act only requires the Crown to establish proof on the balance of probabilities - not the higher criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
A High Court judge found Mr Nicholas was unable to show evidence of a legitimate source of income, therefore ruled his assets had been obtained through criminal offending.
This story has generated robust discussion on the Rotorua Daily Post Facebook page, with strong arguments on both sides.
While I see both arguments, the far-reaching powers of this law doesn't sit comfortably.
I am not naive enough to argue that people who have had property seized under this law are angels. After all, High court judges have ruled it's more likely than not their assets were obtained through crime.
But maybe they weren't. And whether they were or not, is that even the point?
Crack down on gangs by all means. Crack down on criminals. Take their ill-gotten gains. But first I believe the Crown should prove - beyond reasonable doubt - that they are criminals and they are ill-gotten gains. It seems only fair.
