Katie Holland: Standard of proof a worry

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.

We reported how more than $3 million in property, assets and cash had been frozen in the Bay of Plenty under a contentious 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 $1.17 million in property seized, 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 civil standard, of 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.

While I see both arguments, the far-reaching powers of this law don'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.

Crack down on gangs. 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 these are ill-gotten gains. It seems only fair.