Commissioner, New Zealand Police v Martin

[2021] NZHC 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2020-485-36

[2021] NZHC 2006

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

IN THE MATTER OF

an application under sections 22, 24 and 25

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER, NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Applicant

AND

ADRIAN JOHN MARTIN

Respondent

On the papers:
Counsel:	S B McCusker for Applicant S J Fraser for Respondent
Judgment:	5 August 2021

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[1]    The applicant initiated these proceedings under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (CPRA) against the respondent following the discovery of a cannabis cultivation operation on the respondent’s property.

[2]    The CPRA proceedings sought the restraint of all funds in the respondent’s ASB bank account, which at the time of the restraint held an approximate balance of

$58,914.97.

[3]As at 29 July 2021, interest of $856.05 had accrued.

THE COMMISSIONER, NEW ZEALAND POLICE v MARTIN [2021] NZHC 2006 [5 August 2021]

[4]    The respondent has subsequently pleaded guilty to and being convicted of offences in relation to cultivation of cannabis and the possession of cannabis plant for the purposes of supply.

[5]    The applicant has now filed an application for asset forfeiture over the funds in the ASB bank account, inclusive of accrued interest. The respondent consents to the making of an asset forfeiture and acknowledges the funds constitute “tainted property” for the purposes of the CPRA.

[6]    Under s 95(3) of the CPRA, the Court must approve any settlement between the parties if it is satisfied it is consistent with the purposes of the CPRA and the overall interests of justice.

[7]    I am satisfied that the proposed settlement is consistent with the purposes of the CPRA and in the overall interests of justice.

[8]    The order relates to all of the funds seized in the respondent’s bank account. The respondent concedes that they were property that had been directly or indirectly derived from criminal activity. The amount in the bank account appears to represent the bulk of the respondent’s assets.

[9]It is appropriate that these proceedings be bought to a conclusion.

[10]   The applicant has filed a draft assets forfeiture order pursuant to ss 50 and 59(1) CPRA. I make an order in accordance with that draft and direct that following the making of this asset forfeiture order, these proceedings are at an end with costs laying where they fall.

Churchman J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Wellington for Applicant

cc:        S Fraser, Barrister, Wellington for Respondent