The return of $50,000 of native timber is being called for by a Waimana hapu and the man charged with its illegal milling after the timber was seized by the Ministry for Primary Industries.

Despite a recommendation by Judge Robert Wolff at the first trial of Stuart McKenzie Neilson in Whakatane, that the timber be returned to the local hapu, that hasn't happened.

Stuart Neilson wants the timber seized by MPI returned to hapu.

Greg Keys, regional compliance manager (North) for the Ministry for Primary Industries said in April that because there was an appeal in the case any application for the release of the timber couldn't be assessed until the appeal had been heard

That appeal was heard on March 19 when Judge John Woodhouse quashed the sentences against Stuart and reduced his fine from $30,000 to $10,000. Stuart had also appealed his conviction but at the March court case decided to abandon that aspect of the appeal.
Despite the fact the appeal had been heard, Greg told Coast & Country: 'No decision has yet been made on the timber and it has not been offered for sale to any parties. It is currently being housed in secure storage.

'Any person whose timber has been forfeited to the Crown under the Forests Act 1949 or any person having a legal or equitable interest in any such timber may apply to the Minister within 30 days of the conviction concerned for the release of the timber.”

Greg says the original $30,000 was made up of a $15,000 fine and $15,000 reparation. 'The fine itself has been reduced from $15,000 to $10,000 and the order for $15,000 reparation was over-ruled. MPI respects the court's decision in the matter.”

The hapu has repeatedly emailed MPI official Shaun Mercer asking for the return of the timber, so far without success.
Stuart says the issue of the timber has become a stressful and time-consuming saga which he wants resolved with the return of the timber to the iwi.

It began when Stuart lent his portable sawmill to long-time friend Bennett Hutchings to mill timber felled on privately owned land at Waimana to construct buildings on their marae.
'I told Bennett he could use the mill, but to be sure to get the right permits to process the timber,” says Stuart. Bennett didn't get those permits and MPI became aware the trees had been felled, milled and timber sent to Auckland to be dressed.

As Stuart was the registered owner of the mill, he was charged under the Forests Acts of 1949 with the unlawful milling of the timber, convicted and fined $30,000 in relation to 17 cubic metre.
'I had pleaded guilty to the charges in the first place, because the fact was my mill was used, even though I had nothing to do with the felling or milling of the timber. I wasn't even there and Bennett told the court that. I was probably wrongly advised but at the time of the first case I understood that if I pleaded guilty, Bennett would get off and all I wanted was to resolve the matter and see the timber returned to the hapu,” says Stuart.

Laurence Hughes of the hapu, Te Whakatane ki Tauwharemaanuka, from whose land the trees were taken, has written to MPI making an application to have the timber returned.
'Our hapu understand that the timber seized in relation to the court case of Stuart Neilson and Bennett Hutchings has been offered for sale to a person from Wellington. We also understand that there is an affidavit in the hands of a private investigator to substantiate this. The Court Judge recommended during the court case that the timber be returned to our hapu,” he wrote.

Shaun Mercer of MPI replied to that email saying: 'I know nothing about the timber being offered for sale in Wellington, or anything about an affidavit suggesting this, and in fact no decision at all has been made yet in regards to the timber. I will be in touch with you when I know more, however again at this stage we can only return the timber to the people whose property it was taken from”.
Stuart believes MPI became aware of the initial milling after he contacted a timber merchant in Wellington with information about the timber in an effort to assess what its market value might be.
'He [the timber merchant] wanted to buy the timber but I said all along it was not for sale and when I refused to sell him any I think he potted us to MPI.” Stuart admits he was naïve in his email communications with the merchant but had only wanted to help the hapu.

'My concern now is that the timber will not be returned to the iwi who just want to use it to construct important buildings on their marae. We've heard that it has been offered for sale to another party.”
On March 13, three days before Stuart's appeal against his sentence, licensed private investigator Donald Drummond of Christchurch signed a sworn affidavit which said he had made a telephone call to a man on March 3 about the timber. 'He made a reference that it probably was some timber he had been offered that MPI had seized.
He confirmed MPI have offered to sell the subject timber to him. He said the problem is he would have to 'take it all” and as it is mixed types and grades.”

The affidavit also said Donald received a call on March 8 from another man who said he was in control of the timber, and that Donald was not to deal with anyone but him and that the matter had been before the courts and the Crown was in the process of selling the timber.