Commissioner, New Zealand Police v Horrobin HC Wellington Civ-2010-485-2206

[2011] NZHC 1461

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2010-485-2206

IN THE MATTER OF     of an Application pursuant to the Criminal

Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN  THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Applicant

ANDSUSAN FLORENCE HORROBIN Respondent

Hearing:         7 March 2011

(Heard at Wellington)

Counsel:         S K Barr for Applicant

K I Jefferies for Respondent
Isaac Lines in Person

Judgment:      8 March 2011

JUDGMENT OF JOSEPH WILLIAMS J

In accordance with r 11.5, I direct the Registrar to endorse this judgment with the delivery time of 3.30pm on the 8th March 2011.

Solicitors:

Jefferies Raizis, PO Box 10641, Wellington

Crown Law, Wellington

THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE V SUSAN FLORENCE HORROBIN HC WN CIV-

2010-485-2206 8 March 2011

[1]      The Commissioner of Police applies for a profit forfeiture order pursuant to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.  The applicant seeks $16,585.43 plus interest accrued from 29 October 2010 in accordance with s 53, and the same amount plus interest in accordance with s 54.

[2]      For that purpose the following property is to be realised:

(a)       funds from State Insurance of $9,700 in payment of a claim on Honda

Accord Euro motor vehicle registration CAL869;

(b)      the balance of funds as at 29 October 2010 in Westpac account no.

03-0521-0264837-25 in the name of Susan Florence Horrobin and

Isaac Lines plus interest from that date;

(c)       the balance of funds as at 29 October 2010 in a Housing New Zealand account  in  the  name  of  S  Horrobin  plus  interest  accrued  from

29 October 2010 less $418.85 which is to be excluded because it is an outstanding debt to Housing New Zealand.

[3]      Messrs Barr and Jefferies are agreed on the foregoing subject to any view Mr Isaac Lines might take in respect of the first Westpac account in the joint names of himself and Susan Horrobin.  He is Susan’s son.  He says that this account was originally set up as a savings account for him from when he was about six years old. He says that his mother saved money into that account for him in the early years even if from 2004 on it was being used for drug proceeds laundering.  The police evidence in this respect was that from the period 2006 on approximately $27,000 went through this account although Mr Lines earned little more than half of this. Mr Lines also said that during his childhood he delivered pamphlets for pay earning between $86 and $120 a fortnight all of which, he says, was put in that account.

[4]      It is no longer possible to trace the transactions on this account before 2005.

There is therefore no way to positively verify Mr Lines’ story.

[5]      I had the advantage of being the Sentencing Judge in the case of Ms Horrobin so have some familiarity with the background to this matter.  Ms Horrobin had for a considerable period up until the mid-2000s lived a life on the straight and narrow. She had married, worked as a qualified early childhood educationalist and even got a Bachelor of Education degree.   This all came unstuck around 2004/2005 (it is impossible now to be more accurate than that).  From that point on, it is clear that this account was used as a conduit for drug proceeds but prior to this it clearly was not.  During that earlier period, Mr Lines says deposits were made on his behalf into that account both by his mother and himself.

[6]      I am satisfied that there is truth in Mr Lines’ submission.  I do not of course accept that the entire content of the account being $4,145.77, is attributable to his contribution but, in fairness it is appropriate to estimate that perhaps a quarter of the account should be set aside in trust for Mr Lines.

[7]      The Crown will therefore have the orders it seeks with the proviso that in respect of Westpac account no. 03-0521-0264837-25 the sum of $1,000 is to be held on trust for Mr Isaac Lines and the official assignee is to disburse that amount to him in due course accordingly.

[8]      The draft order as filed is to be amended by adding to the end of paragraph

3(c)(ii) the following:

; less  a sum of $1,000 which is to  be  excluded from the Respondent’s property on the ground that it was held in trust for the benefit of Isaac Lines, said amount to be paid by the official assignee directly to Mr Lines.

Joseph Williams J