Car Heid Validly Forfeit To Crown

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31057, 12 May 1966, Page 23

Car Heid Validly Forfeit To Crown

A Mercedes Benz car imported into New Zealand by John Peter Graham, of Christchurch, also known as John Green, a radio technician, had been validly forfeit to the Queen, Mr Justice Wilson held in a recent reserved decision in the Supreme Court. His Honour also entered judgment of condemnation of the vehicle (destruction of the previous owner’s title). Mr C. M. Roper appeared for the Attorney-General. Mr C. I. Patterson, of Wellington, appeared for John Peter Graham and the Channel Islands Finance Company, Ltd., of Jersey. His Honour said the car was imported by Graham on or about April 22, 1964, from Rotterdam. On May 7 Graham completed a baggage sufferance form in relation to the car saying he intended to take up permanent residence in New Zealand and that he had personally owned the car for at least one year bef ore it was shipped. In fact, under the name John Green, he had acquired the vehicle on hire purchase from the Channel Islands Finance Company on January 14, 1964. The vehicle had not been released by the manufacturer for sale before August 22, 1963. In support of his declaration he produced a log book which purported to show he had owned the car from January 6, 1963. Having regard to the date of release from the manufacturer, it was clear that that document was false, his Honour said. As a result of Graham’s declaration and its purported verification the Customs Department released the vehicle to Graham without requiring an import licence or payment of duty. Graham had brought the car to New Zealand without the knowledge of the finance company, and in breach of the hire-purchase agreement.

On discovering the falsity, the Collector of Customs at Christchurch seized the vehicle.

Both Graham and the finance company then gave notice they intended to dispute the forfeiture of the vehicle and that they were respectively entitled to it. However, Graham disappeared before notice of the proceedings could be served on him. The case proceeded in Graham’s absence. His Honour said that there was a clear indication in the relevant section of the Customs Act that the Legislature had intended that questions of justice and mercy should be reserved for consideration by some person other than the Court. “On Mr Roper’s invitation I record that the evidence adduced satisfied me the finance company was the true owner of the vehicle at the time of forfeiture,” he said. However, he was unable to say whether or not Graham then had an interest in the vehicle, he said.