
Couple set to lose $1.7m in property after cannabis bust
A couple have lost their battle to prevent the Crown from taking their two properties worth $1.7 million after a commercial-scale cannabis bust.
Police raided one of Michael John Heron's North Canterbury properties in September 2020, shutting down a 'commercial-scale' hydroponic cannabis-growing operation and seizing more than $153,000 in cash.
Heron pleaded guilty in the District Court to cultivating cannabis, possessing cannabis for supply, and manufacturing cannabis oil. He was sentenced to 12 months of home detention.
Police then moved to confiscate their property at Fernside in the Waimakariri district, as well as another at Waikuku, which Heron and his partner, Hayley Lewis, own as an investment, and the cash. Together, the two properties have council ratings valuations totalling $1.7m.
It was argued both pieces of real estate were 'tainted' by Heron's illegal activities, which a forensic accountant estimated had netted him $1.28m between 2013 and 2020, and the cash was derived in the same way.
Heron acknowledged that the $153,000 was derived from illegal activity but denied that any of his real estate was 'tainted' in terms of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act.
Last year, the High Court made an order under the act to transfer the properties and the cash to the Crown.
The couple took their case to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed their challenge.
However, the court order allowed Lewis to keep $147,000, which Lewis, who has no criminal charges and no criminal history, had contributed to the mortgage and upkeep of the properties from her legitimate full-time employment. The sum was to be paid to her after the properties had been sold.
Heron and Lewis have since taken their case to the Court of Appeal, attempting to have the High Court's decision overturned. The couple's challenge
The Court of Appeal yesterday released its judgment which detailed Heron argued it was only necessary for the judge to make orders that deprived him of assets to the value of the cash profit he had made illegally from the cannabis operation, which amounted to about $380,000.
He submitted that the sale of the Waikuku property alone would recover more than that amount, making forfeiture of the Fernside property unnecessary.
It was also argued that forfeiting the Fernside property would cause undue hardship, as Heron had established a new business on that property.
Lewis argued that the relief granted to her was inadequate and that the judge failed to fully consider her contributions to the Waikuku property from 2016 to 2020.
It was also submitted that Lewis should retain the increase in the capital value of the Fernside property between the date of Heron's arrest and the hearing in the High Court.
'The undue hardship that the forfeiture of both properties will cause for her can only be mitigated by recognising the legitimate financial and non-financial contributions that she made both to her family and to the two properties,' her counsel argued.
But the Court of Appeal ruled the judge was correct not to grant Heron relief against forfeiture concerning the Fernside property.
The decision stated the Fernside property was bought using a deposit from Heron's tainted investment account, the house was then used as a residence for the family, and the garage was converted into a 'sophisticated cannabis growing facility' using cash derived from criminal activity.
'The garage was then used exclusively to conduct a sophisticated cannabis growing operation that derived further cash profits.'
The Court of Appeal also ruled it would not be appropriate to increase the relief Lewis has already received.
'On any view of the evidence, she had some appreciation of what was occurring at both properties. She also plainly knew of the significant quantities of cash her husband's activities were generating over a period spanning several years. She was also prepared to share in the benefits those activities produced.'
The senior court dismissed the couple's appeals and did not make an order for costs as their appeal was legally aided. Raid found 331 cannabis plants
Heron was convicted on the cannabis charges in 2021 and then turned his skills to start a legitimate business, building up a 'micro-greens' growing facility providing edible vegetable sprouts using similar methods to his former cannabis operation.
When he was raided in 2020, officers found 331 cannabis plants in four different stages of cultivation in four grow rooms or tents.
The bust came about a month before the 2020 nationwide referendum on whether to legalise recreational cannabis. The referendum was narrowly defeated and a draft Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill did not proceed.
When he was first arrested, Heron claimed he had only undertaken one successful grow to supply cannabis oil 'for medicinal purposes' in anticipation of a legislative change to permit this.
On the day of the search, Lewis told police that she 'knew something was going on, but not the extent', court documents say.
Police said, however, that Heron had been using four times the daily average electricity use for years to power his grow rooms.
Since June 2016, he had consumed more than 100kWh (units) per day. Over four months in the spring and summer of 2015, his power bill came to $3483.
Police said Heron had fitted out a five-bay garage next to his house to accommodate the commercial-scale hydroponic cannabis-growing operation.
Equipment found included heat pumps and air conditioners, water and nutrient supply systems and a carbon dioxide pump.
'Cash and electronic funds derived from Mr Heron's criminal activity were regularly paid into the couple's joint bank account, and used to pay the mortgages,' according to the High Court order.
In the walk-in wardrobe of the couple's bedroom, police found $153,860 – in total, 3238 banknotes neatly bundled up into $10,000 packages – in two lock boxes on a shelf.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Otago Daily Times
15 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Couple take previous home owner to court after she refuses to leave
A couple who bought a Pāpāmoa Beach house needed a High Court order to remove the previous owner after she refused to leave the property. New owners Benjamin and Chelsea Brown bought the two-bedroom home at a mortgagee sale this year, with settlement taking place on May 21. But the previous owner, Terina O'Connell, said she had been trying to "negotiate a solution with ASB for two years" and had not consented to the sale of her home. As a result, she refused to move out and even went as far as reaching out to people on social media and asking them to come to her home and support her before settlement day. The new owners sought a trespass order on May 22 to remove O'Connell and her supporters, and when that didn't work, they took their case to the High Court. 'The bank does not own my property' According to a recently released High Court decision, Justice Dani Gardiner held a telephone conference on June 6, where O'Connell's position could be heard by all parties. The court was also referred to a Facebook post she made, where she invited supporters to join her at the house. There are two posts still on her Facebook page, in which she did a "call-out" for support, saying "all I know is that the supposed settlement is Tuesday, 20 May 2025 – tomorrow". She said the purchasers had "made a deal with the devil" and that "the bank does not own my property, I have no business with you and I am not bound by any contract you made". She posted that she "would appreciate some support at my home ... tomorrow afternoon ... tomorrow night and for the next couple of days". While not discussed in the High Court judgment, there was also a livestreamed Facebook interview that O'Connell did with Counterspin Media in which she explained her views on the "alleged debt" owed to the bank. In it, she said she had paused her mortgage repayments while the bank refused to provide her with documentation she had requested or answer questions she had. Judge: Any issues between her and bank, not new owners The judge summarised O'Connell's position as primarily taking issue with the mortgagee sale process conducted by ASB. O'Connell told the court she'd tried to "negotiate a solution" for two years, had not consented to the mortgagee sale and said ASB went ahead with the sale anyway. She also said ASB's solicitor advised her of the settlement date, but said she was told the couple's lawyer would contact her about vacating. O'Connell said that never happened and, the day after settlement, the new owner arrived at the property, followed by security guards and police, and she had been "harassed". She rejected the couple's claim that her presence at the house, with others, had posed a risk of damage to the property, adding they were there to "support her through this stressful time" and that she would experience emotional and financial hardship if forced to leave. But Justice Gardiner's decision said the Browns were the registered owners and any issues that O'Connell had before the mortgagee sale were "between her and ASB". "These issues do not affect the plaintiffs' legal ownership of the property," Justice Gardiner said. The judge said while it may have been unfortunate if O'Connell had been unaware the couple intended to take possession of the property immediately on settlement, that was the usual case. She also accepted there was a risk of damage to the property by O'Connell or her supporters. The High Court judgment also noted that while O'Connell remained at the property, the couple were in breach of their insurance policy, as they couldn't change the locks or get an electrical warrant of fitness. They were also unable to rent the property to service their mortgage, which placed them at risk of default. The judge made an order requiring O'Connell and any other occupants to vacate the property by Monday, June 9. Are mortgagee sales on the rise? Cotality New Zealand data showed a "minor lift" to 81 mortgagee sales in the second quarter of this year, up on the previous quarter when there were 52. This marked the highest number since the fourth quarter of 2023, when there were 101 mortgagee sales. However, Cotality head of research Nick Goodall said the number was "still very low in a longer-term context, especially compared to the Global Financial Crisis". "I think this illustrates a more stable financial lending environment over the last decade or so, as well as the willingness and ability of banks to work closely with borrowers who may be struggling, rather than resort to mortgagee sales, which doesn't really benefit either party." OneRoof has 58 properties currently listed as "mortgagee sales" in New Zealand, with the total number of properties listed sitting at just over 38,000. New Zealand Banking Association chief executive Roger Beaumont said banks are responsible lenders. They typically have dedicated teams to deal with those experiencing financial difficulty and mortgagee sales were "rare and always a last resort". "There are several options that banks may offer ... depending on their particular circumstances. That may, for example, include temporarily moving to interest-only repayments." Beaumont said in the six months from July to December 2024, there were 1.4 million home loans across 1.1 million customers. "As an indication of potential financial issues, of the total number of home loans in that period, 17,445 loans switched from principal and interest repayments to interest-only repayments." By Hannah Bartlett, Open Justice reporter


Otago Daily Times
15 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Couple take former home owner to court after she refuses to leave
A couple who bought a Pāpāmoa Beach house needed a High Court order to remove the previous owner after she refused to leave the property. New owners Benjamin and Chelsea Brown bought the two-bedroom home at a mortgagee sale this year, with settlement taking place on May 21. But the previous owner, Terina O'Connell, said she had been trying to "negotiate a solution with ASB for two years" and had not consented to the sale of her home. As a result, she refused to move out and even went as far as reaching out to people on social media and asking them to come to her home and support her before settlement day. The new owners sought a trespass order on May 22 to remove O'Connell and her supporters, and when that didn't work, they took their case to the High Court. 'The bank does not own my property' According to a recently released High Court decision, Justice Dani Gardiner held a telephone conference on June 6, where O'Connell's position could be heard by all parties. The court was also referred to a Facebook post she made, where she invited supporters to join her at the house. There are two posts still on her Facebook page, in which she did a "call-out" for support, saying "all I know is that the supposed settlement is Tuesday, 20 May 2025 – tomorrow". She said the purchasers had "made a deal with the devil" and that "the bank does not own my property, I have no business with you and I am not bound by any contract you made". She posted that she "would appreciate some support at my home ... tomorrow afternoon ... tomorrow night and for the next couple of days". While not discussed in the High Court judgment, there was also a livestreamed Facebook interview that O'Connell did with Counterspin Media in which she explained her views on the "alleged debt" owed to the bank. In it, she said she had paused her mortgage repayments while the bank refused to provide her with documentation she had requested or answer questions she had. Judge: Any issues between her and bank, not new owners The judge summarised O'Connell's position as primarily taking issue with the mortgagee sale process conducted by ASB. O'Connell told the court she'd tried to "negotiate a solution" for two years, had not consented to the mortgagee sale and said ASB went ahead with the sale anyway. She also said ASB's solicitor advised her of the settlement date, but said she was told the couple's lawyer would contact her about vacating. O'Connell said that never happened and, the day after settlement, the new owner arrived at the property, followed by security guards and police, and she had been "harassed". She rejected the couple's claim that her presence at the house, with others, had posed a risk of damage to the property, adding they were there to "support her through this stressful time" and that she would experience emotional and financial hardship if forced to leave. But Justice Gardiner's decision said the Browns were the registered owners and any issues that O'Connell had before the mortgagee sale were "between her and ASB". "These issues do not affect the plaintiffs' legal ownership of the property," Justice Gardiner said. The judge said while it may have been unfortunate if O'Connell had been unaware the couple intended to take possession of the property immediately on settlement, that was the usual case. She also accepted there was a risk of damage to the property by O'Connell or her supporters. The High Court judgment also noted that while O'Connell remained at the property, the couple were in breach of their insurance policy, as they couldn't change the locks or get an electrical warrant of fitness. They were also unable to rent the property to service their mortgage, which placed them at risk of default. The judge made an order requiring O'Connell and any other occupants to vacate the property by Monday, June 9. Are mortgagee sales on the rise? Cotality New Zealand data showed a "minor lift" to 81 mortgagee sales in the second quarter of this year, up on the previous quarter when there were 52. This marked the highest number since the fourth quarter of 2023, when there were 101 mortgagee sales. However, Cotality head of research Nick Goodall said the number was "still very low in a longer-term context, especially compared to the Global Financial Crisis". "I think this illustrates a more stable financial lending environment over the last decade or so, as well as the willingness and ability of banks to work closely with borrowers who may be struggling, rather than resort to mortgagee sales, which doesn't really benefit either party." OneRoof has 58 properties currently listed as "mortgagee sales" in New Zealand, with the total number of properties listed sitting at just over 38,000. New Zealand Banking Association chief executive Roger Beaumont said banks are responsible lenders. They typically have dedicated teams to deal with those experiencing financial difficulty and mortgagee sales were "rare and always a last resort". "There are several options that banks may offer ... depending on their particular circumstances. That may, for example, include temporarily moving to interest-only repayments." Beaumont said in the six months from July to December 2024, there were 1.4 million home loans across 1.1 million customers. "As an indication of potential financial issues, of the total number of home loans in that period, 17,445 loans switched from principal and interest repayments to interest-only repayments." By Hannah Bartlett, Open Justice reporter


NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Couple take former Pāpāmoa Beach home owner to court as she refuses to leave after mortgagee sale
The new owners sought a trespass order on May 22 to remove O'Connell and her supporters, and when that didn't work they took their case to the High Court. 'The bank does not own my property' According to a recently released High Court decision, Justice Dani Gardiner held a telephone conference on June 6, where O'Connell's position could be heard by all parties. The court was also referred to a Facebook post she made, where she invited supporters to join her at the house. There are two posts still on her Facebook page, in which she did a 'call out' for support, saying 'all I know is that the supposed settlement is Tuesday 20 May 2025 – tomorrow'. She said the purchasers had 'made a deal with the devil' and that 'the bank does not own my property, I have no business with you and I am not bound by any contract you made'. She posted that she 'would appreciate some support at my home ... tomorrow afternoon ... tomorrow night and for the next couple of days'. While not discussed in the High Court judgment, there was also a livestreamed Facebook interview that O'Connell did with Counterspin Media where she explained her views on the 'alleged debt' owed to the bank. In it, she said she had paused her mortgage repayments while the bank refused to provide her with documentation she had requested and answer questions she had. Judge: Any issues are between her and the bank, not the new owners The judge summarised O'Connell's position as primarily taking issue with the mortgagee sale process conducted by ASB. O'Connell told the court she'd tried to 'negotiate a solution' for two years, had not consented to the mortgagee sale and said ASB went ahead with the sale anyway. Terina O'Connell says she had not consented to the mortgagee sale but ASB went ahead with it anyway. Photo / Hannah Bartlett She also said ASB's solicitor advised her of the settlement date, but said she was told the couple's lawyer would contact her about vacating. She said that never happened and, the day after settlement, the new owner arrived at the property, followed by security guards and police, and she had been 'harassed'. She rejected the couple's claim that her presence at the house, with others, had posed a risk of damage to the property, adding they were there to 'support her through this stressful time' and that she would experience emotional and financial hardship if forced to leave. But Justice Gardiner's decision said the Browns were the registered owners and any issues that O'Connell had before the mortgagee sale were 'between her and ASB'. 'These issues do not affect the plaintiffs' legal ownership of the property,' Justice Gardiner said. The judge said while it may have been unfortunate if O'Connell had been unaware the couple intended to take possession of the property immediately on settlement, that was the usual case. She also accepted there was a risk of damage to the property by O'Connell or her supporters. The High Court judgment also noted that while O'Connell remained at the property, the couple were in breach of their insurance policy, as they couldn't change the locks or get an electrical warrant of fitness. They were also unable to rent the property to service their mortgage, which placed them at risk of default. The judge made an order requiring O'Connell and any other occupants to vacate the property by Monday, June 9. There has been a slight increase in the number of mortgagee sales this year. Photo / 123rf Are mortgagee sales on the rise? Cotality New Zealand data showed a 'minor lift' to 81 mortgagee sales in the second quarter of this year, up on the previous quarter when there were 52. This marked the highest number of mortgagee sales since the fourth quarter of 2023, when there were 101 mortgagee sales. However, Cotality head of research Nick Goodall said the number was 'still very low in a longer-term context, especially compared to the Global Financial Crisis'. 'I think this illustrates a more stable financial lending environment over the last decade or so, as well as the willingness and ability of banks to work closely with borrowers who may be struggling, rather than resort to mortgagee sales, which doesn't really benefit either party.' OneRoof has 58 properties currently listed as 'mortgagee sales' in New Zealand, with the total number of properties listed sitting just over 38,000. New Zealand Banking Association chief executive Roger Beaumont said banks are responsible lenders and typically have dedicated teams to deal with those experiencing financial difficulty and mortgagee sales were 'rare and always a last resort'. 'There are several options that banks may offer ... depending on their particular circumstances. That may, for example, include temporarily moving to interest-only repayments.' Beaumont said in the six months from July to December 2024, there were 1.4 million home loans across 1.1 million customers. 'As an indication of potential financial issues, of the total number of home loans in that period, 17,445 loans switched from principal and interest repayments to interest-only repayments.' Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.