Home owner told to cough up cash after cops find partner’s cannabis crop

Tuesday, 30 June 2026

A Te Kuiti woman has avoided having her family trust-owned home seized by the Crown after it was deemed an “instrument of crime” due to cannabis cultivation - but she has been left with a bill of $67,023.78.

Karen Sherwood has been ordered to cough up the cash after the Crown sought to seize her Te Kuiti home in the wake of her former partner Richard Boles being found guilty of the cultivation of cannabis and possession of cannabis for supply.

The cannabis was discovered by a police spotter plane, and confirmed in the wake of a search warrant at the address.

In a ruling from Te Kuiti District Court, Judge Tini Clark noted Sherwood had initially been charged together with Boles, but was acquitted and found guilty of an alternative charge of permitting a premises to be used for the purpose of cultivating cannabis.

Sherwood had been convicted and discharged, while Boles was sentenced to two years and six months’ jail.

Boles conviction then prompted the Crown to seek an “Instrument of Forfeiture Order” to seize the property.

Judge Clark said the Crown had argued “on the basis that Mr Boles and Ms Sherwood has been charged with a qualifying instrument forfeiture offence and that there were reasonable grounds to believe that [the property] was an instrument of crime used to facilitate that qualifying instrument forfeiture offence”.

Judge Clark said that while it was Boles, not Sherwood, convicted of a “qualifying instrument offence”, under the legislation the property did not have to be owned by Boles to be considered for seizure.

The issue was also complicated by the fact the property was purchased by a Sherwood family trust, though the Crown argued “whilst Mr Boles is not the registered owner, he holds a prima facie relationship interest and has had effective control over the property for a number of years”.

The ruling also noted Boles had cultivated cannabis on at least four occasions since 2008.

“I understand that on each and every of those occasions, the property involved was [the Te Kuiti property].”

Sherwood’s defence against the seizure was simple: “Ms Sherwood was not convicted of a qualifying instrument forfeiture offence and that the property at [address] is owned by the Trust”.

“The defence point out that Mr Boles does not have an interest in the property because he was not a purchaser of the property, he is not named as having any registrable interest in the property and he is also not a beneficiary of the Trust,” the ruling said.

Defence counsel also noted there was “no evidence of any financial gain as a result of the cultivation and possession of cannabis for supply”.

“Nor was there evidence of the use of any illegitimate funds going towards the purchase or maintenance of the property or any mortgage over the property.”

Judge Clark said she was also asked to consider Sherwood had had no prior warning about the “consequences of further use of the property for the purpose of criminal offending by Mr Boles”.

“Other matters raised for my consideration such as cannabis law reform were not sufficiently relevant in my view to take into account,” said Judge Clark.

She ruled that the property was indeed an instrument of crime, “given both the historical and present use of the land to cultivate cannabis”.

She also ruled the Trust was legitimate and no evidence existed of proceeds of crime being used to make mortgage payments.

However, she also said that there existed a “severe disproportion” between Boles and Sherwood’s offending and the value of the property sought to be forfeited.

Judge Clark said a forfeiture to the extent of 50% of the properties value was warranted, but also agreed to “grant relief” citing Sherwood’s age, culpability, payments towards the property and “the flow on impact of forfeiture on the beneficiaries of the Trust”.

“Ms Sherwood is to pay a sum of $67,023.78,” she ruled.

“After the forfeited sum is forfeited to the Crown, and disposed of by the Official Assignee under Section 85 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, ‘[the property] is to be released from restraint.“

To seize or not to seize?

According to acting Detective Senior Sergeant Sam Buckley of the police central asset recovery unit, a number of factors can decide whether police will seek to seize assets under Instrument Forfeitures laws.

'There's a range of criteria,“ he said.

“You have to have a qualifying offence under the Sentencing Act, but then you're going to weigh up a number of factors too'.

He said these factors can include the scale of the offending, and circumstances around the property such as ownership, any mortgage arrangements and also whether any proceeds of crime were linked to the purchase, or mortgage payments.

He said the public interest would also be weighed up.

'So it's all pretty much case by case, if it fits within the certain legislative criteria. . . . it's not a formula.'

Buckley also said why police seek to seize ill-gotten gains.

'Removing these ill-gotten gains from criminals has a deterrent effect,“ he said.

He also had a warning for anyone who may believe placing assets in trust kept them immune from forfeiture.

'We can look through Trusts.“