Head Hunter assets case: Lawyers for Wayne Doyle take $15.1m High Court profit forfeiture order to the Court of Appeal

Lawyers for Wayne Doyle are appealing a High Court judgment ordering the gang to sell their Marua Rd headquarters in Ellerslie to satisfy a $15.1m profit forfeiture order. Photo / NZME

The longest financial investigation ever conducted by police is likely to drag on for months, if not years after lawyers for Wayne Doyle attacked nearly every strand of a High Court ruling against the senior Head Hunter.

In August, Justice Peter Andrew released a 154-page judgment which ruled that the outlaw motorcycle club was an organised criminal group and Doyle, despite his assertions to the contrary, sat at the pinnacle.

As a result of his influential position, the judge found, Doyle reaped a financial reward from the crimes committed by the gang’s members and laundered the money through a charitable trust.

This was despite Doyle not being charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime in the past two decades.

The landmark decision under the criminal proceeds law meant Doyle must sell five Auckland properties, including the Head Hunters’ pad at Marua Rd in Ellerslie, to pay a $14.8 million profit forfeiture order. A further $275,000 in cash found at the pad was also forfeited.

“The evidence in this case traverses much of Mr Doyle’s adult life,” wrote Justice Andrew.

“For much of the last two decades, he has lived beyond the reach of the law; his attitude to the law appears to be one of cynical disregard.”

After nearly a decade of investigation and litigation, known as Operation Coin, the High Court judgment was widely celebrated by police.

But the Head Hunters have earned a reprieve, although potentially only temporarily, from being evicted from the pad on Marua Rd.

Doyle’s legal team, led by Ron Mansfield, KC, has lodged an appeal which attacks nearly every single pillar of the 154-page judgment.

One of the main points of Mansfield’s arguments, according to documents released by the Court of Appeal, is that Justice Andrew should not have allowed certain evidence to be given at trial.

Some of the disputed evidence were “hearsay” statements from witnesses who did not attend the trial and could not therefore be cross-examined as to their reliability.

One of the reasons that Justice Andrew allowed the statements to be admissible against Doyle was because “a number of these witnesses would not give evidence for fear of reprisal and repercussions from Mr Doyle and the Head Hunters”.

This ruling was not supported by the evidence, according to Mansfield.

The high-profile defence lawyer also argued that Justice Andrew was wrong to rely on “expert” evidence given by police officers, particularly those who said Doyle was the leader of the Head Hunters, because they were not independent witnesses.

“The officers were incapable of being impartial in light of their roles as police officers, their particular investigatory roles within the proceeding, and their interest in the outcome,” Mansfield wrote.

Among other grounds of appeal, Mansfield said Justice Andrew took an “overly cynical view” of Doyle’s efforts to discourage “antisocial behaviour such as drug use”, and there was no evidence that the Head Hunters were an organised criminal group.

“No evidence was proffered by the [police] demonstrating that the offending was coordinated by the club, rather than its members,” Mansfield wrote.

He also said Justice Andrew was wrong to rule that a charitable trust, That Was Then This Is Now (TWTTIN), was a front for the Head Hunters to launder money.

“The court failed to have regard to the fact that the TWTTIN Trust operated as a regulated charity without issue for many years and complied with the highly regulated and enforced charities regime.”

Police talk to alleged national president of the Head Hunters gang Wayne Doyle at the termination of Operation Coin in 2017. Photo / Peter Meecham

In response, lawyers for the police have filed a cross-appeal arguing that Justice Andrew should also have issued an asset forfeiture order against Doyle.

No date has been set for a potential Court of Appeal hearing.

In the meantime, the properties cannot be sold by the Official Assignee, a division of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Enterprise (MBIE) which manages assets restrained under the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act.

“No action can be taken by the Official Assignee to give effect to the orders made against Mr Doyle under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 until the outcome of the current, or any subsequent, appeal is determined,” said Vanessa Cook, national manager.

Under the proceeds law, police do not need to secure a conviction for assets to be forfeited.

Instead, police must prove that someone profited from criminal offending to the lower standard of proof applied in civil cases – “on the balance of probabilities” – rather than surpassing the more difficult “beyond reasonable doubt” threshold for criminal cases.

Jared Savage covers crime and justice issues, with a particular interest in organised crime. He joined the Herald in 2006 and has won a dozen journalism awards in that time, including twice being named Reporter of the Year. He is also the author of Gangland and Gangster’s Paradise.