A South Canterbury man who funded his rates and mortgage through criminal activity has failed in a final attempt to save his properties from being seized by the police.
Stephen Craig Alexander sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court after the High Court ordered the forfeiture of three Winchester real estate items and $6000 in cash.
The police sought the orders under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, following a search of Alexander’s properties that uncovered multiple grow rooms and a large quantity of cannabis.
One search found more than 170 cannabis plants, 1.89kg of dried cannabis, and cash, leading to Alexander’s conviction and a six-month community detention sentence, The Timaru Herald reported last year.
A Supreme Court ruling released on Friday stated that Alexander’s day-to-day expenses were funded through illegitimate means, which allowed him to meet mortgage payments he otherwise could not have afforded. The High Court previously found a disparity of approximately $242,000 between Alexander’s declared income and his actual cash spending.
Alexander argued that the seizure was “unduly harsh” and grossly disproportionate because the properties were his only significant assets. He further claimed the forfeiture raised questions regarding his rights under the Bill of Rights Act not to be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment.
However, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court noted that Alexander had failed to file a formal application for relief on the grounds of hardship before the initial forfeiture orders were made. While he was self-represented at the High Court hearing, he had been assigned three different lawyers in the lead-up to the case, all of whom withdrew.
The Supreme Court found no evidence of a miscarriage of justice and noted there was no up-to-date evidence regarding specific hardship, beyond the general hardship suffered by any person forfeiting property.
